Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

MRyan Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:29 pm

I hope to make this a continuation of the baptism of desire debate just getting under way on page two, https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t960p50-gaudium-et-spes

Columba (et al), before the baptism of desire debate on your GS thread really takes off, as it always does, I wonder if you wouldn’t mind moving the discussion to here so we can concentrate on one subject at a time. Besides, we’re closing in on page three on the other thread, so perhaps we should give this one some breathing room. Not that this is a "fresh" topic, or anything!

I don’t mean the title of this thread to be provocative, so let me explain.

By "extreme Feeneyism", I mean that particular novel brand (of Columba's, Duckbill's and a few others) that holds that no one can be translated to a state of justification, or saved, without actual sacramental ablution - period; as opposed to the teaching of Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center leadership who affirm Trent's teaching on extra-sacramental justification, but "do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood" (Br. Andre).

In other words, if I understand it correctly, in the latter St. Benedict Center position, neither Baptism of Desire nor of Blood is truly efficacious in effecting a salvific regeneration into Christ. This position, which is also quite novel, is explained by Brother Michael, M.I.C.M., in his article, Father Feeney and Catholic Doctrine — A Reply to Verbum, (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.

"Inchoatively", of course, means that the process of regeneration and sanctification is in its beginning stages, but, while one may be in an extra-sacramental state of sanctifying grace (as, ostensibly, a "child of God"), adoption as "sons of God" and "heirs to the kingdom" remain unfulfilled, and the state of grace non-salvific, until it is "fulfilled" and "actualized" in water Baptism.

However, one is either "fully actualized" as a son of God and heir to the kingdom (the state of sanctifying grace), or one is not. So if someone is "in grace", he is "fully actualized" in that he is translated into Christ and is joined to His Body, the Church.

It would seem Br. Michael equates "fully actualized" with being fully and visibly incorporated into the Church by way of the sacramental seal which gives one the right and the power to participate in the sacramental life of the Church; but this has little to do with the state of sanctification itself (justification), without which there is no "actualization" in the life of sacramental grace, and there is no "actualization" of salvific grace (salvation).

Come to think of it, I'm not sure which "novelty" is worse - an outright denial of extra-sacramental justification, or a non-salvific state of sanctifying grace. I suppose one could argue with the latter that it is non-salvific because the sanctified soul is guaranteed to fall out of grace without the sacrament, but that seems a bridge too far.

If someone dies in a state of sanctifying grace, he is assured of his salvation, period, and de fide, and death bed conversions without benefit of the sacrament are certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

To be fair, there is a third and more moderate (orthodox) Feeneyite position which holds simply that God will provide the Sacrament to every one of his justified elect, without fail. Now, while this position affirms that anyone who dies in an extra-sacramental state of grace is assured of salvation, it inevitably runs into trouble when its instinct is to defend the St. Benedict Center position proper, and is known to allege that the Magisterium of the Church has never taught baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

Al three rather nuanced potions run smack-dab into the living, authentic Magisterium of the Church, and that's where this debate begins and ends.

With that clarification in mind (whew), I hope we can proceed.

Jehanne Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:09 am

Mike,

I think that you should spend some time reading this website:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/

In particular, this:

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

Father Maestrini claims that Blessed John would have been just as zealous for the missions, even had he lived in today's Post-Vatican II world, where the Church is no longer considered necessary for salvation:

"...One may argue that, admirable as it was, Blessed Mazzucconi's zeal for the missions was ill-formed and misguided, that it was based on a false assumption and that the powerful incentive which motivated him so strongly is now simply non-existent for us. Consequently the work of evangelizing the non-Christian cannot have the same appeal for us nor the same urgency that it had for Blessed John and the other thousands of missionaries of pre-Vatican days."

MRyan Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:35 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I think that you should spend some time reading this website:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/

In particular, this:

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

And why is that?

"Father Maestrini's claim that Vatican Council II made a complete break with the teaching of the Church on salvation, was rejected in 1988 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: ..."

That's correct, so why should I spend any more time reading this website when I've read it before, perhaps I missed something? Is there something of interest on the website that has anything to do with what I posted above on the alleged non-salvific nature of baptism of blood or baptism of desire, or an alleged state of sanctifying grace that leaves one a "child of God", but not as a "son" and "heir to the Kingdom" - the very translation to justification defined by Trent?

No? I didn't think so.

Jehanne Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:25 am

It's a non-sequitur; we can never know when it ("Baptism of Desire") happens, and if so, how often (if at all) it happens. Are there children in Hell? Those who died at age 6 or 7 in a state of mortal sin? If so, how many? Fact is that we just do not know, why is why the Church wills that children begin to receive the Sacraments as soon as they can upon reaching the Age of Reason. Yes, the Roman Catechism did talk about "intention and determination," but 'turn the page' and you will find this:

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

So, in the eyes of the Fathers of Trent, "desire alone" is not necessarily enough to give a catechumen assurance of eternal life, especially, if that person dies in mortal sin with only imperfect contrition. (And, how could a catechumen know that he/she had reached a state of perfect contrition and had received forgiveness from the Triune God prior to receiving sacramental Baptism?) In this respect, what Columba is advocating and what the Fathers of Trent taught leads to the same outcome, sacramental Baptism. Point is that even if you can show that Columba's theology is wrong you cannot show that it is harmful, which would be a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, condition to show that it is heretical.

columba Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:14 am

Mike, apologies, I just read your request to move our discussion here but didn't read it before posting a reply on the other page. By all means move the dicussion here. I'll post further replies on baptism of desire subject here.

MRyan Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:26 pm

Jehanne wrote:
It's a non-sequitur; we can never know when it ("Baptism of Desire") happens, and if so, how often (if at all) it happens. Are there children in Hell? Those who died at age 6 or 7 in a state of mortal sin? If so, how many? Fact is that we just do not know, why is why the Church wills that children begin to receive the Sacraments as soon as they can upon reaching the Age of Reason.

Trent’s dogmatic teaching on the translation to justification is NOT a non-sequitur, it is an infallible DOCTRINE of the Church that requires the assent of faith. All of your incessant posturing about “we can never know when it ("Baptism of Desire") happens” is irrelevant to the truth of the doctrine itself (how many times must we go over this?).

Again, that we cannot “know when it happens” does not give anyone just cause to either deny that the translation to justification effected by “the desire thereof” is true, or to teach that it is NOT a true justification that makes one a son of God and heir to the Kingdom, and that it represents a defective non-salvific species of sanctifying grace that neither truly sanctifies nor saves.

Jehanne wrote:
Yes, the Roman Catechism did talk about "intention and determination," but 'turn the page' and you will find this:

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.
So, in the eyes of the Fathers of Trent, "desire alone" is not necessarily enough to give a catechumen assurance of eternal life, especially, if that person dies in mortal sin with only imperfect contrition. In this respect, what Columba is advocating and what the Fathers of Trent taught leads to the same outcome, sacramental Baptism.

Thanks, Jehanne, I’ve never “turned the page” before. But, I'm sorry, I can't for the life of me remember ever suggesting that any mere "desire" (intention and determination) is sufficient for justification if faith and charity are not added unto. And I do not know how I could have missed this since it is spelled out rather clearly in both Roman Catechisms of the Catholic Church, like this:

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

And this, from the Catechism of Trent:

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.

So where has the Church, or I, ever suggested that "desire alone" is "necessarily enough to give a catechumen assurance of eternal life"?

This is not just a "non-sequitur, it is an outright fabrication.

Furthermore, how can you twist everything I’ve said on this forum over the last two plus years and reduce it to this parody that suggests I am advocating that the Church’s teaching on justification and the possibility of extra-sacramental sanctification and salvation even remotely suggests that Baptism can be delayed in the danger of death because the catechumen has an “assurance” of salvation when the Church specifically states that she knows of no means other than Baptism that can assure the same. However, in the same breath she also teaches that "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments, and

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. (1258)

So there is your big fat “non-sequitur that is actually quite meaningless because, gee, one cannot know with certitude if so-and-so and so-and-so were actually saved when they died without benefit of the sacrament.

In fact, we cannot even know with certitude if faith-filled catechumens, who "are by that very intention joined with her [the Church]", can be assured of salvation should any one of them die suddenly before being Baptized. Note well that this infallible teaching from Lumen Gentium is preceded by "He is not saved, however, who, ... does not persevere in charity."

In fact, neither can we have the assurance of salvation of any Baptized adult, even should he die immediately upon the reception of the sacrament, for we do not know if he possessed even an imperfect contrition, and thus, if he died in a state of grace.

In fact, besides the canonized saints, the ONLY souls who, from our subjective view, can have the assurance of salvation are baptized infants and those who do not possess the capacity to reason.

The FACT is, Jehanne, we cannot know with infallible assurance the internal state of any adult, so is this a good reason to ignore or reject the Church’s teaching on those dispositions that will in fact ensure a soul’s salvation should an obstacle prevent the reception of the sacrament of Baptism?

In summary, the Church cannot “know” with infallible certitude if the catechumen possesses a perfect charity (a sincere contrition), but she knows with infallible certitude that if these dispositions are present, the catechumen, having received the grace of regeneration, is ASSURED of salvation, and this is what Columba and the St. Benedict Center deny, for they deny either that the extra-sacramental grace can exist (Columba) or that it is not a true justification that makes one a son of God and heir to the Kingdom (the St. Benedict Center, NH).

But, this is all irrelevant, a non-sequitur, right, Jehanne?

Jehanne wrote:
Point is that even if you can show that Columba's theology is wrong you cannot show that it is harmful, which would be a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, condition to show that it is heretical.

Please explain to me how a denial of a de fide doctrine of the Church (extra-sacramental justification) cannot be “harmful” to the Faith? Do we get to pick and choose those doctrines we will accept and those we will reject because someone might abuse the doctrine?

MRyan Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:31 pm

columba wrote:Mike, apologies, I just read your request to move our discussion here but didn't read it before posting a reply on the other page. By all means move the dicussion here. I'll post further replies on baptism of desire subject here.

No problem. Thanks.

MRyan Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
No, there is no contradiction, and not only because the Church cannot contradict herself, or tradition (e.g., the universal moral consensus of theologians) on a matter of faith she proposes . This is either true, or it is false, and this is what you are going to have to come face-to-face-with; its just a matter of time - you can ignore it only for so long.
Mike, what do you think I've been facing up to this past couple years? I'm not avoiding the issue; I'm highlighting it. I know the Church cannot contradict herself on matters of faith proposed for the universal Church; ergo, if there be found contradictions then serious implications arise as to the authenticity of what now is being called "the Church."

Sorry, Columba, but I find this argument entirely disingenuous, for it falsely assumes that “the universal moral consensus of theologians” on the dogmatic truth of extra-sacramental justification that was definitively and infallibly taught by Trent is a contradiction to defined dogma that the Church only NOW teaches through her living authentic Magisterium.

In other words, all of those magisterial teachings of the Church on extra-sacramental justification (Trent, The Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, a Papal allocution, etc.), the univocal understanding of which is universal, that affirm, for example, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;” (Pope Pius XII), are not “magisterial” teachings, no, they are "fallible opinions" that just happen to contradict a defined dogma.

Or, for example, we are let to believe that when the Church teaches that an act of love can “supply” for the “lack of baptism”, Pope Pius XII was NOT really “contradicting” what you say is a defined dogma, he was actually affirming it, in a funny kind of way that only appears “contradictory”, right, Columba?

But, when VCII and the CCC affirm the same doctrine, why, now its time to consider whether the “modern Church” is the one true Church of Christ, or an imposter!

Please explain, Columba, how the Church could have not only allowed a “contradictory” teaching to a defined dogma that is held by a universal moral consensus of theologians, and that was taught openly and with the approval of the Church in the Summa, the Sentences, in theology manuals, Scripture commentaries, local catechisms, etc, but also how the same Church could have taught the same doctrine in her own universal Catechisms, Canon Law, the Holy Office (speaking for the pope), and a Papal allocution, without a single censure or retraction, let alone a condemnation and anathema in order to protect the faithful from heresy.

Just who has been minding the “store” all these centuries? If what you say is true, certainly not our Lord and certainly not His Vicar.

MRyan Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:07 pm

Columba wrote:
We can look at it three ways. Either there is no error being taught and that which is being described as error is merely a result of a poor but harmless ambiguous communication of the faith,

There is NOTHING ambiguous about “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;” (Pope Pius XII)

There is NOTHING ambiguous about “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. (CoT)

There is NOTHING ambiguous about "Can. 737, § 1: Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in desire, is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words." (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici)

There is NOTHING ambiguous about “"Can. 849: Baptism, the gateway to the Sacraments, necessary for salvation in re or at least in desire, through which men are freed from sins, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words." (1983 Codex Iuris Canonici)

There is NOTHING ambiguous about “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. (CCC, 1258)

Scratch option number 2.

Columba wrote:
or, the Lord has allowed ambiguious instruction (per Robert Sungenis' theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGzIposjY0 ) so that those who prefer the erroneous interpretation are left free to follow it to their own perdition, or, there actually is error being taught which of course would mean that the body teaching such error is not the Catholic Church.

Our Lord does nothing through His Church on doctrinal matters reserved for the teaching authority of His Church without His Vicar – period. Your specious option suggests that our Lord has “allowed” his entire Church to go over the heretical “cliff” by being in continuous contradiction to a defined dogma.

So much for option number 3.

We are left with option 1., “there is no error being taught”.

Imagine that.

Columba wrote:
The CCC passage under discussion is merely one example of where those three possibilities can be investigated.

“Investigated” by whom? Who disputes it and when has it ever been disputed by the Church or any of her theologians?

Columba wrote:
The reason I described the passage as erroneous rather than merely ambiguous is due to my substantiated claim that ambiguity itself is an error.

Again, there is nothing “ambiguous” about the passage, it says what it means and means what it says; the same meaning that has been said and held for centuries without a single censure or dissenting voice (notwithstanding Johnny come-lately Feeneyites who were for baptism of desire before they were against it). It is only “ambiguous” to you because you reject the Church’s teaching on extra-sacramental justification because of your erroneous private interpretation of defined dogma.

Columba wrote:
I could however read the passage as wholey orthodox if I use the principle of a teaching being reformable in a positive way which would reconcile the offending sentence with an orthodox meaning:

What?

Columba wrote:
"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

In the same way that "No salvation outside the Church" can be reformed to "Inside the Church salvation can be found" (which IMO is a distortion), we could say (regarding the above extract from the CCC) that the requirement of sacramental Baptism for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament, does not mean that those to whom the Gospel has not been preached and who had not the possibility of asking for Baptism, are exempt from the absolute requirment of the sacrament of Baptism for their salvation.

But that is precisely what it means, when properly understood and taking into consideration the necessary distinctions on the two types of “necessity” that come into play. Baptism is both a necessity or precept ands means, and each has it own “necessity”. That Baptism is not “optional” does not mean that it’s primary effect cannot be fulfilled extra-sacramentally. You simply conflate the two necessities into one, oblivious to the distinction, and oblivious to the constant teaching and tradition of the Church.

Columba wrote:
In other words; to state that those who know of the necessity of Baptism must actually receive it does not automatically exclude those who don't know from this same obligation.

Correct. No one is excused from this obligation.

Columba wrote:
Admittedly the implication is that the latter group are exempt but this is not stated explicitly, ergo, we can still take from the sentence that it does not explicitly exempt anyone from the necessity of Baptism for their salvation. In doing so we would be reading it in conformity with the explicit statemants in the rest of the passage.

No one is exempt from the obligation, but one cannot fulfill an obligation if one does not know about it, or is prevented by some necessity. While the obligation remains, its fulfillment may be satisfied by another means of conveyance that ends in the same primary object of Baptism – the fruit of grace – regeneration into Christ. Our Lord is not a Pharisee.

More later.

Jehanne Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:40 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
Point is that even if you can show that Columba's theology is wrong you cannot show that it is harmful, which would be a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, condition to show that it is heretical.
Please explain to me how a denial of a de fide doctrine of the Church (extra-sacramental justification) cannot be “harmful” to the Faith? Do we get to pick and choose those doctrines we will accept and those we will reject because someone might abuse the doctrine?

And, Mike, we've gone "round and round and round" on this one! Regardless, it is not for you to decide if Columba's theology is flawed or not; that's his bishop's job, and ultimately, the Pope's. Consider what "that website" which I wanted you to read more of has to say:

Father Laisney's thesis on baptism of desire and baptism of blood can not possibly be true. We certainly would have heard of it before now, and from some more reliable source than the Society of St. Pius X, like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or through our own bishop. On the contrary,when Father Feeney was"reconciled" to the Church in 1972 with the approval of Pope Paul VI, through the good offices of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston, and Bishop Flanagan of Worcester, he was not required to retract any of his speculations on baptism of desire or baptism of blood. Also my book They Fought the Good Fight (1987) (which, incidently Father Laisney does not include in his bibliography) 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 Censor deputatus. (4) Of course Father Laisney's book has no Imprimatur.

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

So, instead of berating Columba, why not encourage him to take this matter up with his bishop, and if the latter says that Columba is welcome to receive the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, etc., then please realize that Columba is not a heretic even if some of his ideas fall into the opinio tolerata category.

I think that if you submitted some of your posts to your own parish priest and/or bishop, they would tell you that you are being "a bit narrow" in making the theological judgments and/or conclusions which you are making, and which really, are not judgments which you should be making in the first place, certainly, not in the "external forum".

columba Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:48 pm

Mike, before going on can you deal with the following points I made earlier, i.e, that a universal necessity in order to be a universal necessity must be universally necessary. If even only one soul were to obtain salvation apart from Baptism, the necessity of Baptism would not be universal.

Recap:

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
But, there is no contradiction because, as explained already, a universal and absolute “necessity” that applies to all men without exception (regeneration into Christ) is distinguished from the universal necessity and obligation of all men to be Baptized (to seek what is required for salvation and to be Baptized once one knows of its necessity), the universal precept of which may be excused if some object prevents its fulfillment.

You see Mike, this too is all contradictory.
How can one "universal necessity" be cancelled out by another "universal necessity?"
The one being cancelled out could not have been a "universal necessity" in the first place. Likewise, if one is excused from a universally binding precept -for whatever reason- the universally binding precept was not universally binding in the first place.

And the second point:

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
That latter is what the Church is talking about in this particular passage, which is why the Church (to include Trent) "has always held the firm conviction" that the former may be fulfilled with the proper dispositions (faith, charity, intention). Please note, however, that while the precept of water Baptism may be excused in cases of necessity, the absolute necessity of being regenerated into Christ remains, since it is intrinsic to man’s salvation, as is faith and charity, without which sanctification (regeneration) is impossible. This is why Lumen Gentium 14 teaches:

Mike, again, I'm not nitpicking here, but hasn't it been dogmatically stated that Baptism (the sacrament) is that very process by which a soul is regenerated into Christ and actually receives the supernatural virtue of Faith without which one cannot have true supernatural Charity? And, haven't you quoted earlier (in a previous post) that Baptism is a necessity of both means and precept?

I know you probably believe you have answered these points to your own satisfaction but IMO the contradictions remain.

You have said I clumped the two types of necessity together but in fact you yourself have done this. If something is both a necessity of means and of precept, it means it not only fulfills a stated requirement of law but also a requirement which supercedes that law. In other words, not to fulfill the necessity of precept would result in the non-fulfillment of the necessity of means and vise versa; therefore the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for "all" without exception.

columba Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:59 pm

MRyan wrote:

In Stl, III, Q.66, A.11, Reply to Objections 1 and 2, the Angelic Doctor provides further clarification:

The other two Baptisms [though “they are not sacraments”] are included in the Baptism of Water [they “are like the Baptism of Water … in the baptismal effect”], which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Mike, I don't know how you fail to see what the Angelic Doctor is saying here.

He is stating quite clearly that the other two Baptisms are included in, and part of, the Baptism of water, not separate from it. Without the water you cannot avail of the merits of Christ nor of the Holy Ghost's sanctification. You are attempting to seperate the "other two" from their cause. This is why Our Lord declared that, "Unless a man be born of water and [not "or"] the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
No separation detected there in the mind of Our Lord and quite consistent too with St. Augustines teaching where he says, "Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance; none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned."

Or, as Pope St. Leo the Great in his dogmatic letter to Flavian,( Council of Chalcedon, 451) would teach, "The Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of Baptism. These three remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.

All this is totally consistent with the CCC's "No other means known" and the "necessity of means" of the sacrament of Baptism.

Mike, it would be much more simple to state that God in His mercy will provide the means for all those of proper disposition to receive the laver of regeneration. In so doing we will preserve the integrity of the Church in her dogmas without limiting in any way the mercy of God.

The mindset that requires of God to provide another means outside His stipulated law, on the surface appears to be conforming with what we know of His great love and mercy but in reality is paramount to a denial of His wisdom and His ability to provide within the bounds of His own unchangeable word.

columba Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:19 pm

Mike, in your opening post you state the varying permutations of the Feeneyite position but IMO I don't think one can call himself a true Feeneyite if he doesn't hold the same position that Fr. Feeney held. I therefore am not a true Feeneyite. I see the inconsistency of allowing pre-baptismal justification without the possibility of salvation.

You stated correctly that Duckbill and I hold to the "no justification without Baptism" position (BTW, anyone heard from Duckbill?). I of course believe that this "extreme" position is the only logical position one can take on the matter. Every other form of "Feeneyism" keeps the door of baptism of desire open and it's then only a matter of time before we're all sucked in without knowing how we got there.

To me, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance are the two means by which the majority of members of the Church have been conned into the accepting of religious indifferentism as a virtue. Bolstered by the deception of unqualified obedience, where obedience takes precedence even over the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, we find ourselves left with this one Master Virtue of obedience, even when it has been clearly established that obedience itself has its own limits.

For example; You can require of me to attend an irreverent form of Mass by holding the obedience gun to my head, but I can see your gun and raise you the first commandment. I can then ask you to lead by example and obey the Queen of Heaven by consecrating Russia to her Immaculate Heart; or ask you to reveal the third secret (as also requested by the Queen of Heaven) and if there be no mention of you and what you've done to the Church contained therein, I'll reconsider my apparent dissidence.

The point being, nothing is taken in isolation; there is an interconnection between one point of faith and another. While baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance try to push the Church over the cliff, the Feeneyites of this world hold on to the anchor.

Jehanne Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:27 pm

columba wrote:Mike, in your opening post you state the varying permutations of the Feeneyite position but IMO I don't think one can call himself a true Feeneyite if he doesn't hold the same position that Fr. Feeney held. I therefore am not a true Feeneyite. I see the inconsistency of allowing pre-baptismal justification without the possibility of salvation.

I agree with this 100%. Yes, Mike (and everyone else), please stop labeling as "Feeneyite" individuals holding theological positions which Father Feeney would reject (and which his followers reject, also); doing so will help resolve many issues and unnecessary confusions. If you do this Mike, you will find me posting less! Very Happy

Thanks Columba for clarifying your POV. I do not, of course, agree with what you said (we have the example of Cornelius), however, your views are between you, your confessor, your bishop, the Vicar of Christ, and especially, the One and Triune God.

columba Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:19 pm

Jehanne wrote:
columba wrote:Mike, in your opening post you state the varying permutations of the Feeneyite position but IMO I don't think one can call himself a true Feeneyite if he doesn't hold the same position that Fr. Feeney held. I therefore am not a true Feeneyite. I see the inconsistency of allowing pre-baptismal justification without the possibility of salvation.

I agree with this 100%. Yes, Mike (and everyone else), please stop labeling as "Feeneyite" individuals holding theological positions which Father Feeney would reject (and which his followers reject, also); doing so will help resolve many issues and unnecessary confusions. If you do this Mike, you will find me posting less!

Thanks Columba for clarifying your POV. I do not, of course, agree with what you said (we have the example of Cornelius), however, your views are between you, your confessor, your bishop, the Vicar of Christ, and especially, the One and Triune God.

I'm aware that you do not hold the same opinion as me Jehanne concerning pre-baptismal justification but I do so because it does not contradict the necessity of sacramental Baptism for the remission of sins and salvation.

I don't see how Cornelius and his household differ from the multitudes who gathered in Jerusalem at pentecost. When Peter preached at pentecost he tells the multitudes there gathered, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

Now the Holy Ghost -as with Cornelius- had already come upon them for we are told that they heard Peter in their own language even though Peter himself spoke to them in his own tongue; yet Peter insists that they must be Baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, implying, without Baptism they would remain in their sin.
It also states in Acts that hearing Peter "they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?" 37 another manifestaion of the Holy Ghost inspiring compunction yet without justification, still requiring Baptism as a condition for forgiveness.

BTW, excelent memorial to Fr. Feeney.

MRyan Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:29 pm

columba wrote:Mike, before going on can you deal with the following points I made earlier, i.e, that a universal necessity in order to be a universal necessity must be universally necessary. If even only one soul were to obtain salvation apart from Baptism, the necessity of Baptism would not be universal.

Recap:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
But, there is no contradiction because, as explained already, a universal and absolute “necessity” that applies to all men without exception (regeneration into Christ) is distinguished from the universal necessity and obligation of all men to be Baptized (to seek what is required for salvation and to be Baptized once one knows of its necessity), the universal precept of which may be excused if some object prevents its fulfillment.
You see Mike, this too is all contradictory. How can one "universal necessity" be cancelled out by another "universal necessity?"

The one being cancelled out could not have been a "universal necessity" in the first place. Likewise, if one is excused from a universally binding precept -for whatever reason- the universally binding precept was not universally binding in the first place.

Columba, “one” universal necessity is not cancelled out by the other, they compliment each other, like two sides of the same coin. Think of it (though not a perfect example, the general principle is the same) like predestination, where the particular will is simply the unfolding or realization of the universal salvific will. The universal will does not change if contingencies transfer the particular will from one of salvation to one of justice for a man who chooses to sin, rather than choose the good.

That the necessity of Baptism may be frustrated by ignorance or an obstacle, does not change the universal will of God that says every man needs Baptism. But it does not follow that water Baptism is the only instrument of conveyance that can fulfill this same necessity, since God is not bound by His own sacraments to effect the same end.

In other words, a “universal” necessity of precept does not become “optional” because it cannot be fulfilled by some necessity, or because one is not aware of its necessity. It obliges all men, regardless; for, as George said, every man is in need of Baptism - no exceptions. In fact, even if someone were justified by faith and charity prior to Baptism (known to God alone), the obligation remains.

A “universal” necessity of means, however, must be understood in the context of “necessity of end”, as St. Thomas explains in his Summa, III, Q65, A4:

Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end.

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

Note, Columba, that the sacraments of Baptism and Penance (in the case of mortal sin) are both considered “necessary [to the individual] so that without them the end [salvation] cannot be attained … And this is simple necessity of end.” This clearly suggests that the “thing” that is simply and absolutely necessary (without which salvation cannot be) is not the instrument of conveyance per se, but the “thing” it conveys, the grace of spiritual regeneration. And of course, St. Thomas confirms this with his explicit teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

One of your favorite 19th century Irish theologians from the mid-nineteenth century, Father James O'Kane, Senior Dean of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (Dublin, not London!), sums up St. Thomas’ doctrine like this:

150. The word water in this text (John 3:5) has always been understood by the Fathers of the Church in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation.

151. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all.

152. But though Baptism is thus necessary to salvation, its defect in those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to receive it, may be supplied in two ways, according to the common doctrine of the Fathers:

1° by an act of perfect charity which includes the desire of Baptism, and which is called Baptismus Flaminis;
2° by martyrdom, which is called Baptismus Sanguinis, and by which even infants, who are put to death for Christ, as were the Holy Innocents, may be saved.

There is no other means of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament. (Rubrics of the Roman Ritual; Dublin: Duffy & Co., 1922)

Said another way:

Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions". (Adolphe Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol II, 1959, Pg. 229)

Concerning the necessity of the sacraments for salvation, Peter Lombard (1160 AD) teaches “God did not bind his power by the Sacraments.” In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments to draw men to heaven (Cf. Job 33:15-18). St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the same as he points out “It belongs to the excellence of Christ power, that He (Christ) could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.” (Summa Theologica III, Q. 64, Art. 3) St. Thomas also states “God did not bind his power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament" – (Ibid, Art. 7)

Columba, one of the benefits of having gone over this several (!) times already is that we know each other's arguments, and, if I can cut to the chase, there are two fundamental errors in your “theology” that contribute in a major way to your false understanding of the our Lord’s words in John 3:5, and the Church’s infallible magisterial understanding of the same.

That which is said to be intrinsically necessity to salvation or eternal beatitude include faith, charity, sanctification (or regeneration into Christ), while that which is extrinsic (as necessity of means) to salvation include the sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen). You hold, instead, that:

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.

No, Columba, if it was not intrinsic to salvation before, it cannot be intrinsic afterwards, for salvation is eternal, the conditions for which must remain constant (faith, hope, charity, regeneration) though the instruments of conveyance may change, and what may be only implicit may become explicit. But the necessary elements of salvation that remain constant for all eternity do not and cannot change.

In fact, to be born again in Christ is intrinsic to salvation, but only with the promulgation of the Gospel did the divine precept for water Baptism become the ordinary means of sanctification/salvation.

Meaning, with “necessity of end” the end or object of the sacrament of Baptism is spiritual regeneration, while the object of spiritual regeneration is eternal beatitude. The ultimate or final “end”, then, is salvation. Thus, the divinely instituted instrumental means of water baptism is not intrinsic to eternal beatitude; however, its primary effect (regeneration) is intrinsic to eternal beatitude.

Said in brief, water baptism is the divinely instituted means to an end (salvation); the reason for its institution is to provide the primary and ordinary means for the remission of sins, and the transmission of the merits of Christ. And, as we already know, the living, authentic and infallible Magisterium of the Church teaches with unambiguous authority that God is not bound by His Sacraments to effect the same end.

Let’s examine your explanation:

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.

That example does not prove your point. We are talking about necessity as it is, not as it might have been. And what IS intrinsically necessary for salvation is the application of the merits of Christ to the soul, spiritual regeneration. This is intrinsic to the salvation of each and every man without exception.

As the Logos, Our Lord is both the “method” and the object of our eternal destiny (spiritual adoption as sons of God and heirs to the kingdom). Without faith vitiated by charity, it is impossible to please God, so faith and charity are also intrinsic to our salvation. “Faith by hearing” is the ordinary means to that end (to please God), but it is not the only means, since our Lord may reveal Himself through internal inspiration.

Like the “sacrament of the Church”, water baptism is the divinely instituted instrumental means to an end (our divinely instituted help towards sanctification and salvation), and would only be “intrinsic” to that end if water baptism was intrinsic to sanctification, which we know with infallible certitude that it is not, which brings us to your second manifest error, which is more egregious in that it denies the following teaching:

1. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches an act of love (“forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins”) is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and “takes the place of Baptism”.

2. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that an act of love (“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire”) is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and “supplies for the baptism of water”.

3. Pope Pius XII teaches that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

4. St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches “Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, … is sufficient for justification, … In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.”

5. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1259, teaches “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.

And, you ask,

Where has the Church ever taught that this act of love IS possible without Baptism? The burden of proof is as much upon you as it is me, but I have far more solid reasons for believing that my position is the correct one. In fact I have not a few dogmatic declarations confirming this but also the words of Christ Himself whom you say is not to be understood as is written.

This is actually quite incredible, and goes right to the heart of your “private interpretation” that refuses to be moderated by the Magisterium or by tradition (a universal one at that).

You say you have not a few dogmatic declarations confirming your false doctrine that says an act of love is impossible without Baptism. And of course, in typical Protestant fashion, you also have “the words of Christ Himself whom you say is not to be understood as is written”, when I never said any such thing. For “as it is written” can mean only what the Church says it means, not what you say it means.

Let’s see the evidence, Columba, of a single credible witness (the testimony of a saint, a Doctor, a theologian, a Pope, Scripture commentary, etc.) that corroborates your heterodox and novel “interpretation” of defined dogma and Scripture that allegedly and dogmatically defined that “act of [justifying] love is impossible without Baptism”.

Seriously, I am only asking for just one credible witness. Why is that so difficult if it is a defined dogma, corroborated by Holy Scripture?

From whence is the incredible moxy that arrogantly shake a novel private interpretation of dogma and scripture at the universal tradition of the saints and theologians, as well as at the living, authentic and infallible Magisterium of the Church, which teaches in very unambiguous fashion that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that … This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”, she was not voicing some ill-conceived or controversial “opinion” that is open to “debate”, she is stating an established doctrinal fact, disputed by no one (again, Fr. Feeney believed this doctrine before he denied it), which has been affirmed time and again by her own official teachings as well as the universal testimony of the saints, Doctors and the Schools as the “common doctrine” of the ages.

St. Alphonsus Liguori asks “Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God … is sufficient for justification”; and Columba, responds, “Over here, big guy, and you have no idea what you are talking about; I have dogma and Scripture on my side to prove it!

Sure you do.

MRyan Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:58 pm

Columba wrote:
Mike, in your opening post you state the varying permutations of the Feeneyite position but IMO I don't think one can call himself a true Feeneyite if he doesn't hold the same position that Fr. Feeney held. I therefore am not a true Feeneyite. I see the inconsistency of allowing pre-baptismal justification without the possibility of salvation.

I understand, but keep in mind that what certain parties of the St. Benedict Center call “pre-baptismal justification” is not the true justification defined by Trent, but a non-salvific form of justification that leaves the catechumen, for example, as a child of God (as under the Old Law), but not as an adopted son and heir to the Kingdom.

Now, if you have a problem with a certain deficient type of sanctifying grace that does not truly sanctify, well, me too. See, we can agree on something.

You simply reject pre-baptismal sanctification - period.

So it was not my intention to suggest that you hold to Fr. Feeney’s position, but only to point out where it diverges, and how, when laid side by side, they are actually quite similar, for the result is the same – no true sanctification, and thus, no salvation for anyone deprived of the Sacrament, period; and never mind what the Church actually teaches – she has been seriously confused, apparently, for centuries on end. This has to be, of course, one of the greatest myths ever perpetuated in recorded history.

My intention remains the same, to expose the doctrinal flaws in each errant position and to identify the root cause, which, I believe, when all the smoke is cleared, is simply a defiance of the living authentic Magisterium of the Church. Now, all offended parties will take exception, but that’s OK, I am not about to waiver until I see proof to the contrary. The evidence I have presented is clear enough.

Columba wrote:
You stated correctly that Duckbill and I hold to the "no justification without Baptism" position (BTW, anyone heard from Duckbill?). I of course believe that this "extreme" position is the only logical position one can take on the matter. Every other form of "Feeneyism" keeps the door of baptism of desire open and it's then only a matter of time before we're all sucked in without knowing how we got there.

To me, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance are the two means by which the majority of members of the Church have been conned into the accepting of religious indifferentism as a virtue. Bolstered by the deception of unqualified obedience, where obedience takes precedence even over the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, we find ourselves left with this one Master Virtue of obedience, even when it has been clearly established that obedience itself has its own limits.

For example; You can require of me to attend an irreverent form of Mass by holding the obedience gun to my head, but I can see your gun and raise you the first commandment. I can then ask you to lead by example and obey the Queen of Heaven by consecrating Russia to her Immaculate Heart; or ask you to reveal the third secret (as also requested by the Queen of Heaven) and if there be no mention of you and what you've done to the Church contained therein, I'll reconsider my apparent dissidence.

The point being, nothing is taken in isolation; there is an interconnection between one point of faith and another. While baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance try to push the Church over the cliff, the Feeneyites of this world hold on to the anchor.

One cannot hold on to the anchor by rejecting the Ark's doctrine on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. The anchor is the Rock; Peter, who cannot fail when proposing matters of faith and morals to the universal faithful. This is not “legitimate theological dissent” as if we are comparing the respective Dominican and Franciscan positions on the Immaculate Conception in the 12th century.

There is NO dissent on baptism of blood and baptism of desire as being efficacious towards salvation by providing the fruit of the sacrament, just as it is taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and just as it has always been taught. The protests of a few dissenting voices has zero effect on this established fact - and on the established doctrine itself.

To reject a doctrine or a discipline because abuses occur in the Church is a poor excuse to depart from the bark of Peter (every schism fabricates a heresy to justify its break).

Btw, Columba, no one has ever held a gun to your head to force you to attend a sacrilegious Mass; but, if you hold that the Mass, as it was promulgated and as it is presented in the rubrics, is inherently defective and sacrilegious, then you have a real problem.

It’s amazing that you can suggest that from St. Cyprian to Aquinas to Trent to Bellarmine to Liguori to VCII, the baptisms of blood and desire have been trying to push the Church “over the cliff”, only to be joined by the Church Fathers assembled at VCI who, along with Pope Pius IX, clearly held what would be infallibly proclaimed by VCII, to wit:

7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity. (Ad Gentes, Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church, Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI On December 7, 1965.

Furthermore, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), Dominus Iesus ("On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church"), approved by Pope John Paul II, published August 6, 2000, taught the same doctrine:

20… For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it "in ways known to himself".

When you reject the universal and infallible doctrine that says “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, you might as well reject the doctrine that says "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude", for they are taught by the one and the same infallible Magisterium.

Your rejection of the doctrine is not a defense of the dogma on the necessity of Baptism, it is a frontal assault against the living, authentic teaching authority of the Church; and thus, against Christ Himself, who never once suggested that you could take His words, or the words of a dogmatic declaration, and use them in opposition to that meaning His own Church proposes as true, and as she has always held it. It is your private opinion against the Magisterium of the Church, and that's all it is.

The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Her words are true, and "he who hears you, hears Me".

Jehanne Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
Her words are true, and "he who hears you, hears Me".

Our Status in the Church

Posted By The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary On November 17, 2005 @ 6:30 pm In Outside the Church there is no Salvation,Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire,The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary | 2 Comments

We are often asked about our community’s status in the Catholic Church. The following points should help to clarify this.

Our congregation is a private association of the faithful. Our chapel is an approved house of worship [1] of the Diocese of Manchester, with a priest licitly offering Mass here and enjoying the proper faculties to hear confessions as well.

As baptized Catholics who hold the Catholic faith in its entirety, we are in communion with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. We pray for him [2], as well as for our local bishop, in all of our Masses.

Our right to defend and promote our doctrinal position [3] — the so-called “strict interpretation” of the binding Catholic dogma, “outside the Church there is no salvation” — has been affirmed by those in authority in the Church. This includes our current Holy Father, while in his former capacity as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (For documentary proof of this claim, see the letters linked further down[*] on this page.)

For the professional opinion of a competent canon lawyer on whether or not a loyal disciple of Father Leonard Feeney [4] can be a Catholic in good standing, please see the linked PDF file [5] of a letter from Mr. Peter Vere, J.C.L.[1]

Some helpful considerations on our status are contained in the following six points. These touch upon Father Feeney himself, our Richmond, N.H. community’s Catholicity, and the hierarchy’s view of our doctrinal position:

Father Feeney died in the good graces of the Church, without even the slightest ecclesiastical censure remaining upon him. He did so without having changed his position on “no salvation outside the Church.” In fact, he made no doctrinal reversals of any sort. Knowing that he maintained his dogmatic “hard line,” Church officials lifted “any censures which may have been incurred” in 1972. This is minutely documented in the books Harvard to Harvard [6] and They Fought the Good Fight [7], neither of which was published at the Center in Richmond.
The Diocese of Worcester now has three religious houses whose members believe and actively defend exactly what we do regarding “no salvation outside the Church [8].” Additionally, they all defend Father Feeney’s good name. Those three houses are St. Benedict’s Abbey [9], St. Ann’s House [10], and Saint Benedict Center [11]. In 2007, Abbot Gabriel Gibbs, O.S.B., the Abbot of St. Benedict’s Abbey, wrote a book defending Father Feeney, Harvard to Harvard [6]. Until his death [12] in March of 2010, Abbot Gabriel remained a Benedictine Abbot — a prelate [13] of the Catholic Church — in good standing.
Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, who was one of Father Feeney’s original followers, wrote a defense of our doctrinal position in his book, They Fought the Good Fight [7], which was published in 1987. Besides Brother Thomas Mary’s narrative and annotations, the book has long excerpts from Father Feeney’s most pointed writings on “no salvation outside the Church.” Significantly, the book bears the Imprimi potest [14] of Bishop Timothy J. Harrington, the Bishop of Worcester. (His Excellency granted this on January 15, 1987, thus indicating that the volume is free of doctrinal or moral error.) The book is now out of print, but is available on Amazon.com (ISBN #0-9620994-0-6) is back in print [7]. Brother Thomas Mary, who is now deceased, had a web site [15] that a friend of his now keeps on line.
A well-known “Feeneyite” named Charles A. Coulombe [16] was created Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester by Pope John Paul II on 1 October, 2004. In other words, a “Feeneyite” — and a friend of our community — is a Papal Knight. Mr. Coulombe is a well-traveled and brilliant scholar and historian. Along with several other books [17] and numerous articles, he wrote a much-acclaimed history of the popes, Vicars of Christ [18]. His lecture circuit includes Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh Universities. Mr. Coulombe spoke at our annual conference in 1998. His talks were entitled “Laureate of Little Towns: Fr. Feeney’s Place in Catholic Literature [19]” and “London is a Place: Father Feeney and the Conversion of England [20]. [21]”
Our long-time chaplain, Father Michael Jarecki, is a priest of the Diocese of Ogdensburg, New York. He is in good standing with his own bishop and retains faculties to hear confessions. He is also an heroic, tough, and dedicated old priest who, despite failing health, keeps us fed with the Bread of Life and hears our confessions. He is now 93 years old.
We are Catholics, members of the Catholic Church in good standing. We, in Richmond, have never made a claim of having canonical status as a religious house of the Diocese of Manchester. (The two realities — membership in the Church and canonical approval of a religious house and chapel — are quite distinct. Any Moral Theologian or Canon Lawyer can testify to this elementary bit of Catholic erudition.) Even before our chapel’s recent approval, Father Edward J. Arsenault, then diocesan Moderator of the Curia, stated, “I have no knowledge that any member of the St. Benedict Center has been separated from the communion of the Church or formally declared to be in schism.” This quotation comes from a letter we have on file, dated October 16, 2003. Indeed, without clearly outlined conditions being met, it is impossible to state that a baptized, practicing Catholic has removed himself from the Church’s communion (i.e., ceased to be a member of the Catholic Church). The Church’s current stringent standards for determining what constitutes an actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica (“a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church”) were recently clarified in a notification from the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts (Protocol No. 10279 / 2006 [22]). A study of this protocol will reveal that the members of Saint Benedict Center could never be considered to have defected from the Catholic Church, as we never met the requisites laid out in that document.

Below are links to three graphic files. They are all on letterhead from the Diocese of Worcester, MA, where our Center was located prior to coming to the Diocese of Manchester, NH, in 1989. They demonstrate the good relations that existed between us and His Excellency Bishop Harrington of Worcester, MA. (To preserve the letterhead and the signatures, the files are in .jpg format, not html files. They may take some time to load and will open in another browser window.)

First letter [23]: From Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Mr. Gene Cameron. It affirms that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are “indeed very much Catholic,” while not enjoying “regular” status in the Church; that is, we have no formal canonical recognition. Father (later Monsignor) Deery was the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Worcester.

Second letter[*] [page 1 [24] / page 2 [25]]: Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Father John McCormack, then Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, in which it is explained that the community in Still River, MA (St. Ann’s House) which underwent canonical regularization, did “in no manner abandon Father Feeney’s teachings.”

http://catholicism.org/our-status-in-the-church.html

MRyan Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:51 pm

Columba wrote:

The reason I described the passage as erroneous rather than merely ambiguous is due to my substantiated claim that ambiguity itself is an error.

Columba, this only demonstrates, once again, how terribly deficient is your grasp of the fundamentals and why certain laymen should be banned from reading official documents of the Church when it is obvious they are not equipped to understand what they read, let alone to offer any reliable analysis.

The irrefutable fact is, never once have you “substantiated” your “claim that ambiguity itself is an error”, when all you’ve substantiated is that you do not understand what the magisterial texts say, for nowhere does it say that “ambiguity itself is an error”, but, rather, that deliberate ambiguity for the purpose of malicious deception is always condemned.

You then use that ill-begotten and totally discredited wisp of straw to beat the Church as if it has any substance or validity to it whatsoever.

Tell us, Columba, in its infallible teaching on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, on the question as to the principle source of Revelation, did VCI leave the answer, well, ambiguous?

As I said in a previous post, it certainly did, and the theologians were not of one mind until VCII definitively settled the question once and for all. After VCI, many of the leading manualists, such as Tanquerey, taught that “the principle source of Revelation is Tradition” since it is “more essential to the Church than is Sacred Scripture”. ("Manual of Dogmatic Theology", Vol. I - pg. 173, c. 1959)

I can give you plenty of more examples from the early and latter Councils, but, what's the use?

According to you, Columba, the Syllabus should be condemned as erroneous.

MRyan Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:22 am

Like a broken record, Jehanne, you keep spinning the same tune, but to what purpose? Are you actually suggesting that Columba can resolve his difficulties by getting his Bishop’s good housekeeping seal of doctrinal approval just like the St. Benedict Center ostensibly did when Bro. Sennot’s “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”?

Should we add to this that when “Father Feeney was ‘reconciled’ to the Church in 1972 with the approval of Pope Paul VI, through the good offices of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston, and Bishop Flanagan of Worcester, he was not required to retract any of his speculations on baptism of desire or baptism of blood”?

Are we really going to go through this again? Why is it even relevant when a doctrinal position on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is presented as entirely speculative and reformable “rhetorical outbursts” that Fr. Feeney “used to humorously call ... ‘de Feeney definita’ and “He used to say ‘my danger is that I can make anything sound plausible.’ Of course he never did this with some well established truth. All Father Feeney's speculations on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are of this de Feeney definite variety. In other words they are pure speculations and nothing else.”?

And, what is the “well established truth”? How about, "The brothers hold firmly to the position that there is a Baptism of desire and a Baptism of Blood." (The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion: A Case Study in the Sociology of Religion by George B. Pepper).

The author writes:

Fr. Shmaruk had done extensive work in ecumenical affairs, and this prompted him to approach Archbishop Medeiros about Feeney. "...we had gone out to heal divisions with other Christian Churches," Fr. Shmaruk explained to the Archbishop, "but nothing was being done about that scandalous rift that exists with one of our very own." That is, Vatican II had set a new standard of reconciliation as well as renewal, and Fr. Shmaruk believed this standard should be extended to Fr. Feeney as much as it was to non-Catholics. […]

Fr. Shmaruk reviewed with him the terms of the reconciliation, and resolved whatever misgivings the Archbishop had. The theological issue was in no way treated. Fr. Feeney's relationship with the Church was re-established personally; neither was a retraction asked for, nor was approval of his views implied. Since several theologians in the Church were now advancing positions in sharp divergence from traditional teaching without suffering ecclesial penalties, Shmaruk explained, there was no reason why Fr. Feeney should not enjoy the same consideration. Reconciling Fr. Feeney was an act of pastoral care for the spiritual welfare of one of the Church's faithful. […]

Subsequently, the reconciliation process for Br. Gabriel's group was advanced. On 6 October 1973, Fr. Shmaruk met with Brothers Gabriel and Cyril to go over the material they intended to submit to Rome for reconciliation. At that meeting, Br. Cyril stated: "The brothers hold firmly to the position that there is a Baptism of desire and a Baptism of Blood." Br. Gabriel also gave Fr. Shmaruk copies of three letters which could be used in neutralizing the possible effects produced by the statement published by the Maluf group. One, dated 17 September 1973, and signed by Fr. Feeney, stated that while he believed there was no salvation outside the Church, he also was a loyal subject of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

And of course why wouldn’t They Fought the Good Fight receive an Imprimi potest when it features the teachings of Orestes Brownson who, in his essay, The Great Question, writes:

What Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, and others say of persons pertaining to the soul and yet not to the body of the church makes nothing against this conclusion [Outside external communion with the true Church of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation]. They indeed, teach that there is a class of persons that may be saved, who cannot be said to be actu et proprie in the church. Bellarmine and Billuart instance catechumens and excommunicated persons, in case they have faith, hope, and charity; …

Catechumens are persons who have not yet received the visible sacrament of baptism in re, and therefore are not actu et proprie in the church, since it is only by baptism that we are made members of Christ and incorporated into his body. ...

It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, - have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it.

As Bro. Cyril stated: "The brothers hold firmly to the position that there is a Baptism of desire and a Baptism of Blood."

When reading the small print, we learn that neither of these extra-sacramental "baptisms" are salvific, as neither can “actualize” or effect a true translation to sons of God and heirs to the kingdom. Of course, in Feeneyite lore, far from being a "well established truth", the not-so-well established doctrine that says "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” is clouded in ambiguity, and the truth of which is debated by theologians as an "open question". The myth lives.

As I said, Jehanne, “Is there something of interest on the website that has anything to do with what I posted above on the alleged non-salvific nature of baptism of blood or baptism of desire, or an alleged state of sanctifying grace that leaves one a ‘child of God’, but not as a ‘son’ and ‘heir to the Kingdom’ - the very translation to justification defined by Trent?”

Quit trying to leverage the pastoral care shown to Fr. Feeney (and the various Centers) "for the spiritual welfare of one of the Church's faithful" as some type of implied "approval of his views", it was nothing of the sort.

Jehanne Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:33 pm

Mike,

Once again, you're "pounding on open doors". The community in Still River, Massachusetts (where Father Feeney is buried), labors under no canonical sanctions whatsoever:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

They even sell Father Feeney's book The Bread of Life:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/24-calendar-saints/354-bread-life.html

And, they believe in the existence of the Limbo of the Children:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet.html

Their bishop, His Excellency Robert McManus, gives their students the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Traditional Rite:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/newsletters/49-2012-newsletters/483-summer-fall2012.html

The group in New Hampshire (Brother Andre's) has permission to defend the "strict interpretation" of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism DeeryLetterII

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism DeeryLetterII

So, what are you, exactly, saying? Did Father Feeney die as a ferendae sententiae heretic? Are you saying that the Saint Benedict Center in Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire are heretics? If they are not heretics, then, what, exactly are they? Are they in full communion with the Church of Rome or not? If the latter, why is a diocesan bishop performing Sacraments with them, granting priests faculties for them, etc.???

MRyan Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:35 pm

Jehanne wrote:
columba wrote:Mike, in your opening post you state the varying permutations of the Feeneyite position but IMO I don't think one can call himself a true Feeneyite if he doesn't hold the same position that Fr. Feeney held. I therefore am not a true Feeneyite. I see the inconsistency of allowing pre-baptismal justification without the possibility of salvation.

I agree with this 100%. Yes, Mike (and everyone else), please stop labeling as "Feeneyite" individuals holding theological positions which Father Feeney would reject (and which his followers reject, also); doing so will help resolve many issues and unnecessary confusions. If you do this Mike, you will find me posting less!

How often you post is irrelevant to me. Very Happy

But let's get our cards on the table. It is my position that Fr. Feeney, whose views are probably most faithfully represented by the St. Benedict Center leadership (NH), rejected the salvific natures of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, not necessarily in se, but as being somehow unfulfilled or deficient, much as the additional gift of persevering grace is necessary for salvation. As an "opinion", there is nothing inherently heterodox in Fr. Feeney's position, only troubling for what it suggests.

It was Fr. Feeney's spiritual descendents, such as Mike Malone, Br. Andre, Bro. Michael and others who dug deeper and provided the doctrinal justifications for this position, which I find troubling indeed, and wholly unorthodox in that it reduces the justification defined by Trent to a less than salvific form of sanctifying grace that does not appear to "actualize" a translated soul into sons of God and heirs to the Kingdom.

As such, since you are on record as having rejected this position, by your own standards, you are not a "true Feeneyite". In fact, because Columba does not believe that anyone can be saved by baptism of blood or baptism of desire (and denies that they can even exist as a true justification), he is more a Feeneyite than you are, even if he disowns the label.

The truth is, the Feeneyite tent is fairly large, and there is no one litmus test for "entry", except to appreciate Fr. Feeney, promote Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and to stress the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Nothing wrong with that, on the surface. The devil, as you like to say, is in the details, and that's where I like to shake it up, much to your dismay, for you seem to see any challenge to the doctrinal position of the St. Benedict Center on justification as some sort of attack against the person of Fr. Feeney, or the St. Benedict Center in general, which it most certainly is not.

I'm here to discuss doctrine, nor the politics of "reconciliation", and I am not interested in knowing who is and who is not a "true" Feeneyite - I don't care.

And, I don't know anyone at the St. Benedict Center who is not a Catholic.

MRyan Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Once again, you're "pounding on open doors". The community in Still River, Massachusetts (where Father Feeney is buried), labors under no canonical sanctions whatsoever:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

They even sell Father Feeney's book The Bread of Life:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/24-calendar-saints/354-bread-life.html

And, they believe in the existence of the Limbo of the Children:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet.html

Their bishop, His Excellency Robert McManus, gives their students the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Traditional Rite:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/monastery/newsletters/49-2012-newsletters/483-summer-fall2012.html

The group in New Hampshire (Brother Andre's) has permission to defend the "strict interpretation" of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:
[snip]

So, what are you, exactly, saying? Did Father Feeney die as a ferendae sententiae heretic? Are you saying that the Saint Benedict Center in Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire are heretics? If they are not heretics, then, what, exactly are they? Are they in full communion with the Church of Rome or not? If the latter, why is a diocesan bishop performing Sacraments with them, granting priests faculties for them, etc.???

Quit polluting this thread with your nonsense.

MRyan Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:52 pm

Columba wrote:
Mike, again, I'm not nitpicking here, but hasn't it been dogmatically stated that Baptism (the sacrament) is that very process by which a soul is regenerated into Christ and actually receives the supernatural virtue of Faith without which one cannot have true supernatural Charity? And, haven't you quoted earlier (in a previous post) that Baptism is a necessity of both means and precept?

Columba, I missed this the first time around, but your fundamental error should be obvious, where you say:

hasn't it been dogmatically stated that Baptism (the sacrament) is that very process by which a soul is regenerated into Christ and actually receives the supernatural virtue of Faith without which one cannot have true supernatural Charity?

No, it has not been dogmatically stated that the infusion of the supernatural virtue of charity is reserved to the sacrament of Baptism alone. For the unbaptized “impious” adult, the supernatural virtue of charity is an unmerited gift that is infused directly by God (along with the virtues of faith and hope) by entreaty as a result of a faith animated by perfect charity, the latter of which is commonly described as loving God above all else. A sincere sorrow and detestation of sins for having offended God is its corollary, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas also calls it a “Baptism of Repentance”, for charity and contrition are driven from the same motive, the love of God:

Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2: … a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism/

While Aquinas and the Church make a distinction between Charity and Penance, a “perfect charity” assumes a sincere contrition, or it wouldn’t be perfect, and vice-versa.

You are on record, Columba, as stating that an act of justifying love is simply not possible for fallen man in his non-regenerated state. Here is one of your arguments:

I go further and say that our fallen nature makes it impossible. Thus, what was impossible for Man became possible by the perfect fulfillment of the law in Christ, and all that was merited for us in our fallen state was applied through the laver of regeneration in Christ through the sprinkling of the waters of Baptism, so that, “Unless a man be born again of water etc...”

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 existence of Baptism is to make this act possible for it is obvious that for many even baptism will be received to no effect.

Please pay very close attention to the Council of Trent, Session XIV, Ch. IV, On Contrition:

Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. … The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.

The Council clearly and infallibly declares that contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; in one who has fallen before, as well as in one who has fallen after Baptism. It is also clearly and infallibly suggests that before Baptism, the movement of contrition for obtaining the pardon of sins is effected “when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required” under the Law (old or new).

There is absolutely no doubt that the Council of Trent dogmatically declares that the remission of sins was possible before the institution of the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. It is also an infallible dogma that there is no remission of sins without sanctification, and vice-versa. You cannot have one without the other, de fide (one of the condemned heresies of Baius).

This dogmatic truth is also confirmed by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical on the Holy Ghost, Divinum Illud Munus, where he declares:

7. … It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). … Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. …

Are you really going to suggest, Columba, that in those of the just who lived before Christ, whose justice was derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, whereby the Holy Ghost resided and dwelled in the saints by grace, that these same justified souls were not really justified, since they were incapable of being justified by an act of love?

And, are really going to suggest that was possible for the just under he old dispensation is not longer possible under the new; and that since the promulgation of the Gospel, “our fallen nature makes it [and act of justifying love] impossible”?

Finally, Columba, with respect to the necessity of Baptism I may have made the distinction between precept and means much to complicated.

A necessity of precept no longer becomes necessary when it cannot be fulfilled. However, when I say the obligation remains, the obligation falls under the necessity of means, which must be fulfilled (satisfied) by Baptism, either by the laver of regeneration, or by its desire (faith, charity, intention).

columba Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:00 pm

Mike, I see we're getting into those circular arguments again but nevertheless IMO the matter's still worth persuing.
There are points in your previous posts I wish to address but I'll begin with your latest post and work back to -or include- those earlier points as they become pertinent.

MRyan wrote:
No, it has not been dogmatically stated that the infusion of the supernatural virtue of charity is reserved to the sacrament of Baptism alone. For the unbaptized “impious” adult, the supernatural virtue of charity is an unmerited gift that is infused directly by God (along with the virtues of faith and hope) by entreaty as a result of a faith animated by perfect charity, the latter of which is commonly described as loving God above all else. A sincere sorrow and detestation of sins for having offended God is its corollary, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas also calls it a “Baptism of Repentance”, for charity and contrition are driven from the same motive, the love of God:

Mike, in your above statement you are making my point better than I myself am making it because you are applying those things which apply exclusively to Water Baptism to the pre-baptismal state of non-sanctification which (if such a state of true sanctification could exist since the institution of the Sacrament by Christ) would render water Baptism as near to obsolete as one could get.... Making it some kind of metaphor.

I'll rewrite the orange highlighted portion of your statement in a manner that prevents sacramental Baptism from becomming "some kind of metaphor:"

For the newly baptized adult, the supernatural virtue of charity is an unmerited gift that is infused directly by God (along with the virtues of faith and hope) by consent and desire of the candidate and intention of the minister, resulting in an actual translation from a previous state of sin and emnity to that of sonship, justification and forgiveness, thus making possible -for the newly regenerated creature- that which was previously impossible; i.e, salvation by faith animated by perfect charity, the latter of which is commonly described as loving God above all else; for as the Truth says, "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

In the above Catholic definition of scaramental Baptism, neither Christ, the Church or Trent is contradicted.

Re, the cyan highlighted part of your post; I refer you to a reply I gave earlier where it is clear that St. Thomas includes "Baptism of Repentance" as part of -not divorced from- the actual Sacrament of Baptism.

MRyan wrote:

In Stl, III, Q.66, A.11, Reply to Objections 1 and 2, the Angelic Doctor provides further clarification:

The other two Baptisms [though “they are not sacraments”] are included in the Baptism of Water [they “are like the Baptism of Water … in the baptismal effect”], which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Mike, I don't know how you fail to see what the Angelic Doctor is saying here.

He is stating quite clearly that the other two Baptisms are included in, and part of, the Baptism of water, not separate from it. Without the water you cannot avail of the merits of Christ nor of the Holy Ghost's sanctification. You are attempting to seperate the "other two" from their cause. This is why Our Lord declared that, "Unless a man be born of water and [not "or"] the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
No separation detected there in the mind of Our Lord and quite consistent too with St. Augustines understanding where he says,
"Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance; none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned."

Or, as Pope St. Leo the Great in his dogmatic letter to Flavian,( Council of Chalcedon, 451) would teach,
"The Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of Baptism. These three remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.

All this is totally consistent with the CCC's "No other means known" and the "necessity of means" of the sacrament of Baptism.

Quoted by MRyan:
Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2: … a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.

I've no doubt the Angelic Doctor would have abandoned this view in favor of the dogmatic pronoucements of Trent. Having established that the other two Baptisms are contained in, and part of, the sacrament of Baptism, he separartes them above into three independent Baptisms. Obviously both views are not consistent with each other and one view must ultimately give way to the other.

MRyan wrote:
While Aquinas and the Church make a distinction between Charity and Penance, a “perfect charity” assumes a sincere contrition, or it wouldn’t be perfect, and vice-versa.

And both perfect charity and sincere contrition are impossible without regeneration. Regeneration is impossible without Baptism. If it (regeneration) is possible without the Sacrament of Regeneration, then Baptism itself is merely one means among others to the same end. I think we're losing the distinction between supernatural Charity and natural charity (of which Our Lord says, "Even the pagans [have] as much") Matt 5:47. How can a mere natural, fallen man (son of Adam) have supernatural virtue?

This is the same kind of mistaken theology that allows extra-sacramental effects to be present in places where it is of dogmatic certainty that they cannot be present. I'm using as an example Cardinal Ratzingers view that Transubstantiation can take place by the intent of the gathered faithful without proper form/anaphora.

Here's a hypothetical case:

A catechumen presents himself for Baptism. The minister/priest accidently grabs a jug of vodka thinking that it contains water and procedes to pour it over the head of the catechumen while saying the proper formula of words. The catechumen takes a heart attack and dies on the spot. We know for sure he has not been validly baptized due to the absence of proper matter (natural water). The non-valid sacrament did not effect what it signified; in other words, nothing happened. Can we now say he received baptism of desire, that is, all the graces of the sacrament without the sacrament? If so we can deduce from this that improper matter is of no consequence and Baptism is a mere metaphor; a complimentary ritual to baptism of desire.

Will continue later.

columba Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:33 pm

Mike, the more we discuss and debate this issue it's becomming claerer to me that it's not really about baptism of desire. baptism of desire is just a convenient name given to the concept that salvation can be gained (even though the "but not apart from" clause is always added) outside the Church.

baptism of desire itself remains an non-defined quantity. We don't have a working definition.
When we are told that we must accept baptism of desire we are really being told that we must accept the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, and we must accept it because God can save whomsoever he wishes. The insinuation is that those who do not believe that Non-Catholics can be saved, also believe that God cannot save whomsoever he wishes. This is not true. We believe that He can save anyone He wishes to save and the means He chooses to do so is by incorporating them, through sacramental Baptism, into His Mystical Body on earth, the Church.

BTW Mike, I'm with you on your understanding (or lack of) on the predestination dilemma but not when liking it to baptism of desire. The analogy doesn't work (at least for me) and I'll get back to that later.

MRyan Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:16 pm

columba wrote:Mike, I see we're getting into those circular arguments again but nevertheless IMO the matter's still worth persuing.

The only reason they are “circular” is because you’ve never actually addressed them in any of your previous responses, i.e.:

1. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that penance and the remission of sins are (and were) at all times possible both before and after Baptism.

2. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that there can be no pardon/remission of sins without a sanctification of the spirit, and vice-versa.

3. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace” and that their justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

4. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

5. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

Rather, you dance around all of these magisterial truths with accusations of “ambiguity” while totally deconstructing them with some esoteric mind-numbing mind-reading to the point where they are gutted of all truth, and/or they mean the very opposite of what their clear words convey – the true meaning of which is held by the Church as evidenced by her numerous magisterial pronouncements and by a universal moral consensus of theologians.

For example, I’ve asked you repeatedly to bring forth just one accredited theologian since Peter Lombard or St. Thomas Aquinas who, rather than confirming these truths, in any way disputes any one of them.

You ignore my challenge because you cannot produce even one. Neither can you provide even one accredited theologian or pope who understands Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4 to mean that “or its desire” is NOT understood to mean that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain” the “sanctifying grace” of baptismal regeneration which has always been known “to supply the lack of [water] baptism” when water Baptism is “impossible”.

Not even one theologian, saint, Doctor or pope will come forward to validate your heterodoxy, not one – not even Fr. Feeney. What does that say about your interpretation of a "once defined dogma" that is understood by the Church "as it is written"?

Rather, you brazenly affirm that your private interpretation of Scripture and dogma is not private, yours is the same univocal understanding that is and always has been held by the Church, even though you cannot produce a single pope or theologian to validate your privately held interpretation, and even though we have one magisterial proof after another that confirms over and over again the common opinion of the Doctors.

And, to top it all off, rather than address the magisterial truths presented to you “as it is written” and as they are understood and taught by the Church and the unanimous moral consensus of theologians, you accuse all such magisterial evidence as being “ambiguous”, and then have the audacity to state that the Church teaches “ambiguity itself is an error”, thus revealing your double-mind and warped “theology”.

How convenient that you play the “ambiguous” canard when it suits you -- and then reject as “ambiguous” all magisterial evidence that refutes your private interpretations.

I’ll address your re-write of dogma in another post.

MRyan Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:13 pm

Columba wrote:
Mike, the more we discuss and debate this issue it's becomming claerer to me that it's not really about baptism of desire. baptism of desire is just a convenient name given to the concept that salvation can be gained (even though the "but not apart from" clause is always added) outside the Church.

As you state it and understand it – it is heretical.

What you really should be saying is that the baptisms of blood and desire are the common opinions of the theologians and that the Church magisterially confirms these doctrines as extra-sacramental means of baptismal regeneration. “Outside the Church” in this context does not mean “Outside the Church”, but only outside the institutional Church in re, but not in voto, by which one may be internally united to Christ and His Body (“circumcision of the heart”) by a supernatural faith animated by perfect charity.

Extra ecclesium nulla salus has two components, the first of which says that those who refuse to enter her or are obstinate in their schism against her, cannot be saved outside of her visible communion (i.e., Baptism, the profession of the true faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc.). The second of which says that just as there is no salvation apart from Christ, there is no salvation apart from His Body, the Church, such that anyone who is united ("joined") to Christ in the salvific bonds of faith and charity is ipso facto united to His Body, the Church, which is the true meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, as the Church teaches, and has always held.

So, when you say “baptism of desire is just a convenient name given to the concept that salvation can be gained (even though the ‘but not apart from’ clause is always added) outside the Church”, you are only manifesting your false presumption and egregious error that holds that any unity other than an external unity with the Church is a false unity. An internal unity apart from the external, you say, does not exist and cannot exist because, since at least the day of Pentecost (when the "switch" was turned on activating the New Law), fallen man is simply no longer capable (if he ever was) of a perfect charity and a true contrition that can move our Lord to apply the merits of His passion to any soul without water Baptism.

In other words, you say, IF “the merits of Christ” were applied to the justified souls of “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, that was then and this is now, for man is no longer capable of such justifying faith and charity without the infusion of the supernatural virtues in water Baptism.

As usual, you are looking at this from the wrong end and getting it completely backwards. Far from restricting the salvific heavenly graces that were unleashed with our Lords Redemption, these same graces made it even more possible for man to conform himself, by grace, to Christ. That being so, man still has a fallen nature and our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Baptism so that a less than perfect charity would not prevent our Lord from translating that soul to Himself, and to equip His faithful to live the life of grace as members of His Body.

So really, Columba, since our Lord's institution of Baptism, our Lord refuses to accept a fervent faith, a sincere contrition born of a love for Him above all things, and a charity that desires His will only be done, as proper motives for applying the merits of His Passion, and uniting Himself with that soul in all true justice?

Seriously, is that what you are trying to sell as dogma?

Whether you deny the clear words of Pope Leo XIII on extra-sacramental justification before Baptism's institution and/or reject the clear words of Pius XII on extra-sacramental justification before Baptism, or deny that extra-sacramental justification is no longer possible, either way, your goose is cooked and I challenge anyone on this forum to help you locate just one accredited theologian or any saint or Pope whomsoever who will collaborate such egregious nonsense.

I’m still waiting for some proof, besides that of the discredited meanderings of a couple of internet lone wolves.

Jehanne says none of this matters, I say it does.

Jehanne Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:53 pm

MRyan wrote:Jehanne says none of this matters, I say it does.

It only matters at the Last Judgment; it does not matter "here and now". Our message to the Jews, pagans, infidels, heretics, and schismatics, etc. is this:

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam)

And, this:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

I cannot promise non-Catholics things which I cannot deliver, and so in the end, I owe everyone the Truth -- convert to the One True Faith & Church, outside of which no on at all will be saved. You can, if you wish, embrace "null set" theology, but it may be that Hell is full of unbaptized infants as well as Jewish, Protestant, Islamic, etc., children who died just after reaching the Age of Reason. It may be that most, if not all, of the little children who perished in the recent mass murder went to eternal Hell. We simply do not know.

Point is:

I don't know and you don't either.

All that we have now is that sacramental Baptism, submission to the Roman Pontiff, full profession of the Roman Catholic Faith, adherence to natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law; and active and full participation in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church together with supernatural faith & charity, these things, all of them together, give an individual some assurance of salvation and everlasting life. Anything less may and likely will result in eternal and everlasting damnation.

Fact is, Mike, you don't have an "in voto" meter which you can lug around with you, inserting such into any non-Catholic whom you met which can give you any sort of evidence, let alone proof, that such an individual has "implicit faith with supernatural/perfect charity laboring in invincible ignorance through no fault of his/her own and who is cooperating with the supernatural graces of the One and Triune God and is who is in a state of grace." Fact is that you simply do not know, and I don't either.

Hell may be very full or it may be very empty; I don't know and you don't either. I am not going to embrace "null set" theology, however, whether it concerns infants who die without sacramental Baptism or material heretics who reach the Age of Reason.

Time, of course, will provide the answer.

columba Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:21 pm

MRyan wrote:
The only reason they are “circular” is because you’ve never actually addressed them in any of your previous responses, i.e.

Mike,

I think I have addressed them but will do so again in the order you present them.

1. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that penance and the remission of sins are (and were) at all times possible both before and after Baptism.

Penance and the remission of sins were always possible both OT and NT times.
In OT times remission of sins was granted to those penitents who placed their hope in the Lord through faith in the redeemer to come. The merits of Christ are applicable to all generations past and present and availed of by following the precepts laid down by the Lord for each period. As the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of sin prior to the comming of her Son (by His foreseen merits), so too were the OT faithful able to avail themselves of grace the same way; "Behold His reward is with Him and His work before Him."(Is 40:10)

2. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that there can be no pardon/remission of sins without a sanctification of the spirit, and vice-versa.

Since the institution of the sacrament of Baptism there can be no remission of sins nor sanctification without Baptism. To put it another way; Unless a man be born again of water he cannot enter the Church. There's plenty of dogmatically-procliamed, magisterial teaching to prove this.

3. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace” and that their justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

I don't dispute this. What I do dispute is your claim that since the comming of Christ sanctifying grace (regeneration) can be obtained without regeneration by water and the spirit.

4. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

I have addressed this in the past. An act of supernatural love would indeed supply for the lack of Baptism but unfortunately for the non-baptized this act of supernatural love is impossible as they have not yet been reborn of grace through the laver of regeneration.
Pope Pius X: “As a matter of fact, however, merely naturally good acts are only a counterfeit of virtue since they are neither permanent nor sufficient for salvation.” (Editae Saepe 28)

5. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

I agree Mike, that this Baptism of blood and the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without them being sacraments in their own right because they are contained in, and elements of, the sacrament of Baptism. Without Baptism they are not salvific.
"..no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Rather, you dance around all of these magisterial truths with accusations of “ambiguity” while totally deconstructing them with some esoteric mind-numbing mind-reading to the point where they are gutted of all truth, and/or they mean the very opposite of what their clear words convey – the true meaning of which is held by the Church as evidenced by her numerous magisterial pronouncements and by a universal moral consensus of theologians.

I merely understand them in conformity with defined dogma.
A universal moral consensus of theologians is not the requirement; a unanimous consensus is, and we don't have that.

For example, I’ve asked you repeatedly to bring forth just one accredited theologian since Peter Lombard or St. Thomas Aquinas who, rather than confirming these truths, in any way disputes any one of them.

And what would that prove? I can bring forth accredited theologians prior to Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas but all this is irrelevant since the Church has spoken dogmatically on the matter.

Neither can you provide even one accredited theologian or pope who understands Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4 to mean that “or its desire” is NOT understood to mean that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain” the “sanctifying grace” of baptismal regeneration which has always been known “to supply the lack of [water] baptism” when water Baptism is “impossible”.

An act of love would indeed be sufficient for an adult to obtain” this “sanctifying grace if this act of love were possible without rebirth in Christ through Baptism.
Can you point me to even one such soul who the Church confirms was saved without Baptism? It may be possible but the Church to the present day knows of no other means apart from Baptism that makes this possible.

While on the subject; can you explain how a thing can be impossible for God? I'm thinking here of His providing the waters of Baptism for those properly disposed to receive it.

And, to top it all off, rather than address the magisterial truths presented to you “as it is written” and as they are understood and taught by the Church and the unanimous moral consensus of theologians, you accuse all such magisterial evidence as being “ambiguous”, and then have the audacity to state that the Church teaches “ambiguity itself is an error”, thus revealing your double-mind and warped “theology”.

We are dicussing here baptism of desire. The Church has never defined what it is and to whom it applies. If she did, we wouldn't have as many permutations of "the doctrine" as we do of Feeneyism. Some of you say it applies only to the catechumen who dies before receiving water Baptism. Some say it's applicable to even those who have never heard of Christ but implicitly desire it. Some say that this desire must be explicit and so on and so on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Church proposes something for belief, she usually defines what it is she wishes us to believe.

How convenient that you play the “ambiguous” canard when it suits you -- and then reject as “ambiguous” all magisterial evidence that refutes your private interpretations.

Well then here's your chance Mike. Define baptism of desire. For me there's nothing ambiguous about it, it just doesn't exist. Or rather if it does exist there's no way of knowning and I for one know of no other way apart from Baptism by which a soul can attain to salvation.

MRyan Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:28 pm

You only confirm, Jehanne, with your childish and churlish characterizations of magisterial teachings why “Feeneyism” in the hands of 5th rate “theology” internet cranks is such a scourge.

"In voto meters" and "null set theology", indeed. Spare me the nonsense.

columba Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:57 pm

MRyan wrote:
As you state it and understand it – it is heretical.

What you really should be saying is that the baptisms of blood and desire are the common opinions of the theologians and that the Church magisterially confirms these doctrines as extra-sacramental means of baptismal regeneration. “Outside the Church” in this context does not mean “Outside the Church”, but only outside the institutional Church in re, but not in voto, by which one may be internally united to Christ and His Body (“circumcision of the heart”) by a supernatural faith animated by perfect charity.

I believe it is you who are stating it wrong Mike.

What you really should be saying is that the baptisms of blood and desire are common, but not unanimous, opinions of the theologians and that the Church though permitting speculation, does not magisterially assert the existence of extra-sacramental means of baptismal regeneration.
“Outside the Church” in any context means “Outside the Church.” Those inside the institutional Church in re, but who remain in mortal sin, will, if they refuse to repent, suffer the same fate as those who are outside the Church in re, for the former cannot have supernatural charity and the latter cannot have a supernatural faith.

MRyan wrote:
The second of which says that just as there is no salvation apart from Christ, there is no salvation apart from His Body, the Church, such that anyone who is united ("joined") to Christ in the salvific bonds of faith and charity is ipso facto united to His Body, the Church, which is the true meaning of “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, as the Church teaches, and has always held.

The Church in the past has authoritatively condemned this kind of invisible communion.

MRyan wrote:
An internal unity apart from the external, you say, does not exist and cannot exist because, since at least the day of Pentecost (when the "switch" was turned on activating the New Law), fallen man is simply no longer capable (if he ever was) of a perfect charity and a true contrition that can move our Lord to apply the merits of His passion to any soul without water Baptism.

A "switch being turned on" may not be the best analogy but suffice to say, something changed; The old law was abrogated and what was once meritorious became sinful (but try telling that to a modern-day Peter). Under the new law, fallen man is simply not capable of perfect charity or efficacious contrition without water Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
An internal unity apart from the external, you say, does not exist and cannot exist because, since at least the day of Pentecost (when the "switch" was turned on activating the New Law), fallen man is simply no longer capable (if he ever was) of a perfect charity and a true contrition that can move our Lord to apply the merits of His passion to any soul without water Baptism.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Cornelius and his household required water Baptism. Perfect charity and true condition would have sufficed for their regeneration, but as we know, it didn't; they had to be baptized.

MRyan wrote:
As usual, you are looking at this from the wrong end and getting it completely backwards. Far from restricting the salvific heavenly graces that were unleashed with our Lords Redemption, these same graces made it even more possible for man to conform himself, by grace, to Christ. That being so, man still has a fallen nature and our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Baptism so that a less than perfect charity would not prevent our Lord from translating that soul to Himself, and to equip His faithful to live the life of grace as members of His Body.

This is one of your better arguments Mike. But.
If it were a simple matter of making it more possible for man to conform himself, by grace, to Christ, Baptism would not be mandatory. But it's actually more than that; it's necessary, for without it a man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

MRyan wrote:
So really, Columba, since our Lord's institution of Baptism, our Lord refuses to accept a fervent faith, a sincere contrition born of a love for Him above all things, and a charity that desires His will only be done, as proper motives for applying the merits of His Passion, and uniting Himself with that soul in all true justice?

Seriously, is that what you are trying to sell as dogma?

The Lord doesn't refuse a fervent faith or sincere contrition born of a love for Him above all things; He makes such a disposition possible through the laver of regeneration. As we know, Man, apart fron Christ can do nothing. Baptism unites the soul with Christ not merely by a bond of friendship, but by actual incorporation into His Body. The Baptized person becomes a living member of a body of whom Christ is the head. The Church knows of no other way this kind of necessary union can come about apart from sacramental Baptism.

How did the those in the OT achieve this union? We will know someday but it could be quite possible that they too were regenerated through water.

columba Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:12 pm

Just fixing the last part of my previous post.
I really ought to check these things before clicking "post."

It should have read like this:

MRyan wrote:
So really, Columba, since our Lord's institution of Baptism, our Lord refuses to accept a fervent faith, a sincere contrition born of a love for Him above all things, and a charity that desires His will only be done, as proper motives for applying the merits of His Passion, and uniting Himself with that soul in all true justice?

Seriously, is that what you are trying to sell as dogma?

The Lord doesn't refuse a fervent faith or sincere contrition born of a love for Him above all things; He makes such a disposition possible through the laver of regeneration. As we know, Man, apart fron Christ can do nothing. Baptism unites the soul with Christ not merely by a bond of friendship, but by actual incorporation into His Body. The Baptized person becomes a living member of a body of whom Christ is the head. The Church knows of no other way this kind of necessary union can come about apart from sacramental Baptism.

How did the those in the OT achieve this union? We will know someday but it could be quite possible that they too were regenerated through water.

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:52 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
The only reason they are “circular” is because you’ve never actually addressed them in any of your previous responses, i.e.
Mike,

I think I have addressed them but will do so again in the order you present them.

Columba, thanks for the clarifications. I may have misunderstood your position on justification and the remission of sins under the Old Law, and if I am not mistaken, your position has been modified, for I seem to remember a time when you stood squarely with Duckbill on this. With that behind us, let me summarize your position as I understand it by noting how you characterize the differences in the translation to justification in OT versus NT times.

Under the former, the virtues/dispositions of faith, charity and contrition (“circumcision of the heart”) moved our Lord to respond with the gift of sanctifying grace and the future merits of His passion. We are in agreement, and that's where our agreement ends.

Under the New Law as you understand it, the bar has been raised to such an extent that in order to be justified in grace and to become not just children but sons of God and true heirs to the kingdom, the virtues of an ardent faith, hope and charity (“circumcision of the heart”) no longer suffice for justification, and our Resurrected Lord is no longer moved by such ardent entreaties unless they are supernaturally vitiated by the theological virtues infused in water baptism, and only in water baptism (and not in or by "or the desire thereof").

Hence, a regeneration of the Spirit with the fervent desire for Baptism is no longer possible without actual material ablution.

In other words, under the New Law, no one can “avail themselves of grace” except by availing themselves to the sacrament of Baptism; and, if the sacrament is not availed to them, no mere grace assisted ardent faith, charity and desire will suffice to move our Lord to regenerate a soul without actual ablution – period, that the Law.

Our Lord, in other words, under your system of grace, has become a Pharisee, and a “circumcision of the heart” will avail a man nothing unless it is first “perfected” in the actual waters of Baptism - that’s the law of grace under the new dispensation whereby the free gift of sanctifying grace is no longer free, it is no longer the divine unequal exchange of love for love in the souls of those who, responding to God's call and grace, manage to attain to such profound entreaties of love; no, such justifying dispositions of old can justify no one ever since, on the day of Pentecost, they have become intrinsically bound to the perfections of a divine precept.

You would have it that our Lord's atonement was a perfect act of love, and He expects and wills in return a "perfect" supernatural act of love on our part before He will unite Himself to any given soul, no matter how fervent his love, for not even the love of a Catechumen who dies for love of Him can move Him; no, such untreated love is no longer good enough under "the Law". And that, you say, is what the Church has dogmatically "defined".

And so it is that a man who had not heard the Gospel and was justified under the old law and died on the day before Pentecost - was assured of salvation; but his brother who possessed even a more ardent faith and charity, whether he heard the Gospel or not, but who died the next day, could neither be justified nor saved without water baptism - that's the new "law" - that's what "changed".

And you say you have dogmatic and magisterial texts to prove this, while you ignore the dogmatic and magisterial proofs that confirm over and over again that an act of love can supply for the lack of water baptism since they effect the same end – regeneration into Christ.

columba wrote:To put it another way; Unless a man be born again of water he cannot enter the Church. There's plenty of dogmatically-procliamed, magisterial teaching to prove this.

Actually, your “dogmatically-proclaimed, magisterial teachings” do NOT prove that “Unless a man be born again of water he cannot enter the Church”; they prove only that he cannot become a material and visible member of the Church without water Baptism. But, as the Church teaches, one may “enter” (be “IN”) the Church in voto by becoming united to Christ in the bonds of faith and charity, as the dogmatic definition by Trent on Justification declares, and as the Church and her Popes and her approved theologians have repeatedly confirmed, without a single dissenting voice, no, not one. You say that this teaching is not “unanimous”, yet you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to back this up.

Please provide the opposing dogmatic/magisterial evidence that rejects the doctrine of Lombard, Albert the Great, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernard of Clairvaux, Bellarmine, Liguori, etc., and repudiates the universal moral consensus of the theologians on the universal and magisterially acclaimed understanding of Trent, Sess 6, Ch 4; and repudiates the unanimous understanding of the Catechism of the Council of Trent; that repudiates the unanimous understanding as it is reflected in approved Scripture commentaries and in the approved theology manuals; and repudiates the universal common understanding as it is reflected in canon law, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and its Compendium), the allocution of Pope Pius XII and the solemn teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

I want to see where this universal magisterial infallible teaching was magisterially repudiated (the heretical "dueling magisteriums"), and why no one knows about it except you and Duckbill.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
4. You have not addressed the incontrovertible magisterial proof that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.
I have addressed this in the past. An act of supernatural love would indeed supply for the lack of Baptism but unfortunately for the non-baptized this act of supernatural love is impossible as they have not yet been reborn of grace through the laver of regeneration.

This is where your flawed and errant “theology” is completely exposed.

If a man professes supernatural faith in God and loves Him with all his heart before he is justified into Christ and infused with the supernatural virtues, whether under the Old Law or the New, it is only because the supernatural truth has been revealed to him by God and he has been assisted by prevenient grace to love Him with an ardent charity, and NOT because the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity had already been infused into his soul.

So when Pope Pius XII teaches that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, he is NOT saying that such a non-regenerated soul already possesses the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, he is saying that such acts of faith and love are sufficient in times of necessity to replace the divinely instituted sacrament of baptism whereby the supernatural virtues are ordinarily infused into the soul. In other words, God is not bound to His sacraments to effect the same end – baptismal regeneration.

Elaborating further, in all truth it is through the prevenient grace of God that man receives the power to act supernaturally (to profess his faith in God and to love Him with all his heart). “But”, as Fr. Scheeben says:

only God can so radically transform and renew his being and his faculties that he becomes a child of God and possesses in himself the principle of divine life, free from all grievous sin; only God who moves him to the acts preceding justification can work such a miracle. Man is utterly helpless in this matter, since the very power required for eliciting supernatural acts before or in justification is completely restored only by the full or partial bestowal of the supernatural principles comprised in the grace of divine sonship. [See Natur und Gnade, pp. 221 ff.]

Accordingly the conferring of the grace of sonship, as also of all the prerogatives associated with it, is exclusively the work of God. The grace is conferred through a mysterious activity of the Holy Spirit who, descending into the soul and dwelling therein with the fullness of His Godhead, inflames it with His divine fire and, by means of a stupendous regeneration, causes it to share in His own divine nature and sanctity. Thereby He excludes sin from the soul and, through the medium of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity, He brings the soul into harmony with its supernatural end.

Therefore the Council of Trent declares: "The efficient cause of justification is the merciful God who gratuitously [hence without any merit on our part] washes and sanctifies, signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance"; that is, the inheritance of us, the children of God. [Sess. VI, c.7; Denz., 799]

But as we saw in a previous connection, the sacred humanity of Christ is the organ whereby the Holy Spirit enters into the whole mystical body of Christ, and dwells in it with His supernatural power and activity. The sacraments in their turn are the secondary organs whereby Christ's humanity, or rather the divine power emanating from it, is ordinarily directed toward us, and comes into contact with us.…

But how does this disposition put the soul on the path to grace? First, the soul experiences a sincere longing for grace, and desires to receive it from God. God Himself engenders this yearning in the soul by His prevenient grace. That very fact confers on the soul a claim for the realization of its desire, and consequently disposes for the reception of grace, just as any well-ordered desire is a disposition for its realization. If this longing is the fruit of an elevation of the soul, whereby the soul is already beginning to embrace God with the love of a friend and bride, it is so effective that the marriage with the soul is immediately brought to pass by God, and in that same instant God and the repentant soul meet in a holy kiss. If the soul does not soar quite so high, and seeks grace and the friendship of God from motives that do not proceed from pure charity, God does not come at once; He lets the soul wait, just as the soul keeps Him waiting, and He offers His grace only in the actual reception of His sacraments. (Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity (originally published in 1865), Ch. 23, “The Process of Justification”, Herder Book Co., 1946

This is why the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation …” and “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."

This is also why Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum:

In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.

Now, isn’t it interesting that the Catechism of Trent uses the identical words “will avail them to grace and righteousness” as you do when you reject this very same teaching by saying no one can “avail themselves of grace” except by availing themselves to the sacrament of Baptism.

Enough, for now, gotta run.

Jehanne Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:46 pm

MRyan wrote:This is why the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation …” and “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."

We "Feeneyites" (or at least this "Feeneyite") does not believe that the above in red and orange happens, ever. "Unforeseen" to man, yes, but not to the One and Triune God:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: "Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

Everyone who is justified by "Baptism of Desire" will receive the Sacrament of Baptism of Water; no exceptions whatsoever. Why should we think otherwise?

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:24 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
This is why the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation …” and “should any “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."
We "Feeneyites" (or at least this "Feeneyite") does not believe that the above in red and orange happens, ever. "Unforeseen" to man, yes, but not to the One and Triune God:

That's quite a brain trust, "we Feeneyites", that can figure out all on its own that nothing is unforeseen by God, as if it is not obvious that this particular Roman Catechism passage is referring to what is "unforseen" by man. Of course, Feeneyites also tend to believe that God is somehow bound to remove every contingency in the particular order that might prevent water Baptism from being "unforseen" to man in the first place, thus rendering this same passage totally meaningless.

Jehanne wrote:Everyone who is justified by "Baptism of Desire" will receive the Sacrament of Baptism of Water; no exceptions whatsoever. Why should we think otherwise?

Because the very Catechism citation you arrogantly dismiss as a meaningless "null set" teaches, as the Church teaches still, that the sacrament may very well be "impossible" to receive under certain contingent circumstances, and that God, who sees all things, allows for this and, responding to the proper dispositions, effects an extra-sacramental regeneration because He can, and because it is His divine will.

The Fathers who wrote the Catechism of Trent knew what they were talking about, unlike certain "Feeneyites" among us.

Jehanne Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:50 pm

Mike,

You have your own brand of null-set theology:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. (Council of Florence)

For you, the "original sin alone" is a null-set; it never happens, or at least "we are allowed to hope" that it never happens. So, are you saying that we "Feeneyites" are not "allowed to hope" that everyone who makes it to Heaven has ended this life with sacramental Baptism in Water?

By the way, can you point out where "Baptism of Desire" as being a dogma of the Catholic Faith:

http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc

That is, where has the Catholic Church defined that there are souls in Paradise who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism?

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You have your own brand of null-set theology:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. (Council of Florence)

For you, the "original sin alone" is a null-set; it never happens, or at least "we are allowed to hope" that it never happens. So, are you saying that we "Feeneyites" are not "allowed to hope" that everyone who makes it to Heaven has ended this life with sacramental Baptism in Water?

Your argument says that since "we are allowed to hope" that God has mercy on unbaptized children and saves them, that this makes "original sin" a "null set", even though the "hope" of salvation is not the "assurance" of salvation; therefore, "the limbo of the children" remains a distinct possibility.

Btw, can you show me where the Church has defined that "original sin alone" can apply only to unbaptized infants?

And do tell us, Jehanne, did that place in hell where unbaptized infants go who suffer the mildest forms of eternal sensory torments (the doctrine that was taught for the first eight centuries by the Latin Church) become a "null set" when it was replaced by the limbo of eternal natural bliss (which you have attempted to sell as "a way of salvation") where the devil cannot take dominion over these same infants?

Jehanne wrote:By the way, can you point out where "Baptism of Desire" as being a dogma of the Catholic Faith:

http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc

That is, where has the Catholic Church defined that there are souls in Paradise who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism?

Can you point out where the Church has defined that any Catholic is allowed to reject the magisterial teachings of the Church by appealing to private interpretations of dogma, or by setting the Magisterium of one pope against that of another, as if they can be opposed in non-reformable matters of faith and morals?

Did you know that those who do this have been anathematized by the Church?

Can you point out where the Church has defined that the religious submission of the mind and will is not required of non-revealed but universally taught doctrines of the living, authentic Magisterium?

Do you agree with Brian Kelly who said that the Magisterium has never taught baptism of blood or baptism of desire?

“St. Vincent claims from 1 Cor. 12:27-28 that whoever rejects the ecclesial authority of those persons in the Church whom God has placed in their office, whether Apostles, prophets, or doctors, despises not man, but God. To despise those who were appointed by God as teachers and preachers in His Church, when they are unanimous in Christ in the interpretation of some one point of Catholic doctrine, despises God because unity in the truth comes from God through the persons God has established in the various offices of His Church.

(http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/#identity)

columba Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:47 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba, thanks for the clarifications. I may have misunderstood your position on justification and the remission of sins under the Old Law, and if I am not mistaken, your position has been modified, for I seem to remember a time when you stood squarely with Duckbill on this.

Mike, my position on justification hasn't changed. A shift in emphasis on how it all works out eschatologically speaking (so VC2 I know) may have been mistaken for a change in stance.

I can't be so silly as to deny that those existing before the institution of Baptism could not be saved. All that I asserted was that their salvation was totally dependant on the redemptive work of Christ. How the merits of Christ were applied in the period before the institution of the sacrament of Baptism is not clear to me but I can understand it in a way that neither detracts from the post-pentecost necessity of Baptism and the Church's understanding of justification.

We discussed before wheather circumcision removed the stain of original sin or not and to my knowledge there's no firm teaching that says it did. I'm currently of the opinion that it didn't (but will stand corrected if an authoritative source can be sited to the contrary).

MRyan wrote:
With that behind us, let me summarize your position as I understand it by noting how you characterize the differences in the translation to justification in OT versus NT times.

Under the former, the virtues/dispositions of faith, charity and contrition (“circumcision of the heart”) moved our Lord to respond with the gift of sanctifying grace and the future merits of His passion. We are in agreement, and that's where our agreement ends.

I don't think we actually are in agreement here.
I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace (that was the term I was looking for all this time and couldn't remember it. Thanks for mentioning it in your post) is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says,
"The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)

A state of pre-justification (there's a term for that too which escapes me) existed for those of faith in OT times, for as we know, the law which they were under in that time did not have the power to save; hence the present-day Jews (still laboring under the old law) have excluded themselves from the hope of salvation.

MRyan wrote:
Under the New Law as you understand it, the bar has been raised to such an extent that in order to be justified in grace and to become not just children but sons of God and true heirs to the kingdom, the virtues of an ardent faith, hope and charity (“circumcision of the heart”) no longer suffice for justification, and our Resurrected Lord is no longer moved by such ardent entreaties unless they are supernaturally vitiated by the theological virtues infused in water baptism, and only in water baptism (and not in or by "or the desire thereof").

You got most of it right except where you say "the bar has been raised." The bar has actually been lowered. What man' could not achieve by his own efforts under the old law (i'e, possession of sanctifying grace and salvific justifcation) can now be achieved by incorpration into Christ through sacramental Baptism, where the merits of Christ's blood are applied to all those who are members of His Mystical Body, His Church.
If anyone knows of another means by which this incorporation can take place, they claim to know more than the Church knows.

MRyan wrote:
Hence, a regeneration of the Spirit with the fervent desire for Baptism is no longer possible without actual material ablution.

Again, partly correct.
The "fervent desire for Baptism" is always possible without actual material ablution. Actual material ablutuion would make the desire meaningless as Baptism can be administered once only.

"Hence, a regeneration of the Spirit is no longer possible without actual material ablution," is correct since actual regeneration of the Spirit is achieved only through the sprinkling of water, also known as Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
In other words, under the New Law, no one can “avail themselves of grace” except by availing themselves to the sacrament of Baptism; and, if the sacrament is not availed to them, no mere grace assisted ardent faith, charity and desire will suffice to move our Lord to regenerate a soul without actual ablution – period, that the Law.

That is the law and I didn't make it. As the saying goes, "Don't shoot the messinger."
Under the New Law, no one can avail themselves of sanctifying grace” except by availing themselves of the sacrament of Baptism.
Grace assisted ardent faith, charity and desire will suffice to move our Lord to regenerate a soul with actual ablution, for as scripture says, "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." (Psalm 37:4) The heart's desire of a catechumen I assume would be actual Baptism and,"a contrite heart you will not spurn" (psalm 51:17).

Mryan wrote:
Our Lord, in other words, under your system of grace, has become a Pharisee, and a “circumcision of the heart” will avail a man nothing unless it is first “perfected” in the actual waters of Baptism - that’s the law of grace under the new dispensation whereby the free gift of sanctifying grace is no longer free..,

On the contrary; it's more than free. In the case of an infant it doesn't even need to be desired or sought. In the case of an Adult it washes them clean of original and actual sin without even requiring a confession never mind a sacramental confession.
The Lord is more than generous indeed.

MRyan wrote:
it is no longer the divine unequal exchange of love for love in the souls of those who, responding to God's call and grace, manage to attain to such profound entreaties of love; no, such justifying dispositions of old can justify no one ever since, on the day of Pentecost, they have become intrinsically bound to the perfections of a divine precept.

Mike, I couldn't have put it better myself, except for the fact that in your tone their seems to be some displeasure with the Lord's precept.

MRyan wrote:
You would have it that our Lord's atonement was a perfect act of love, and He expects and wills in return a "perfect" supernatural act of love on our part before He will unite Himself to any given soul, no matter how fervent his love, for not even the love of a Catechumen who dies for love of Him can move Him; no, such untreated love is no longer good enough under "the Law". And that, you say, is what the Church has dogmatically "defined".

It's for all the above reasons that I maintain the Lord would never permit such a soul to perish without the laver of regeneration.

Will continuen later.

Jehanne Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:09 pm

Mike,

Florence states:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. (Council of Florence)

MRyan wrote:Btw, can you show me where the Church has defined that "original sin alone" can apply only to unbaptized infants?

Who, then, does "in original sin alone" apply to? Are you saying that it is impossible for someone to depart this life "in original sin alone"? If so, then the Council of Florence was teaching a theological hypothetical, no? That is, that Council was teaching something which never happens in reality.

MRyan wrote:And do tell us, Jehanne, did that place in hell where unbaptized infants go who suffer the mildest forms of eternal sensory torments (the doctrine that was taught for the first eight centuries by the Latin Church) become a "null set" when it was replaced by the limbo of eternal natural bliss (which you have attempted to sell as "a way of salvation") where the devil cannot take dominion over these same infants?

Yes, Mike, you have made progress, haven't you?! For now you realize that the teaching of Saint Augustine (which he himself modified throughout his life) never gained widespread acceptance in the East, so Saint Augustine's teaching was never universally taught by "all the theologians," hence, it never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians, which is likely what Saint Thomas and others felt that they were free to modify it somewhat.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:By the way, can you point out where "Baptism of Desire" as being a dogma of the Catholic Faith:

http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc

That is, where has the Catholic Church defined that there are souls in Paradise who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism?
Can you point out where the Church has defined that any Catholic is allowed to reject the magisterial teachings of the Church by appealing to private interpretations of dogma, or by setting the Magisterium of one pope against that of another, as if they can be opposed in non-reformable matters of faith and morals?

Once again, Mike, I am only going to defend the teachings of Father Feeney and not some of his "followers"; as I pointed-out to you numerous times, those true followers of Father Feeney enjoy full communion with the Pope, Bishop of Rome.

MRyan wrote:Did you know that those who do this have been anathematized by the Church?

Once again, none of the three communities who are "direct descendants" of Father Feeney labor under any canonical penalties whatsoever.

MRyan wrote:Can you point out where the Church has defined that the religious submission of the mind and will is not required of non-revealed but universally taught doctrines of the living, authentic Magisterium?

Once again, does anything which Father Feeney taught in his The Bread of Life contradict the Church's authentic Magisterium? If so, why is His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManu, giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to a bunch of individuals who, in your view, are heretics?

MRyan wrote:Do you agree with Brian Kelly who said that the Magisterium has never taught baptism of blood or baptism of desire?

The Church's Magisterium has definitively taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood, however, are we still allowed to believe that the One and Triune God will ensure sacramental Baptism for each and every one of those individuals who receive the grace of Baptism through desire alone? I would say, "Yes!"; if you disagree, then write the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.

MRyan wrote:
“St. Vincent claims from 1 Cor. 12:27-28 that whoever rejects the ecclesial authority of those persons in the Church whom God has placed in their office, whether Apostles, prophets, or doctors, despises not man, but God. To despise those who were appointed by God as teachers and preachers in His Church, when they are unanimous in Christ in the interpretation of some one point of Catholic doctrine, despises God because unity in the truth comes from God through the persons God has established in the various offices of His Church.

(http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/#identity)

Once again, these same "ecclesial authorities" are the ones who are granting the Sacraments to individuals whom you claim are heretics. In this respect, it is you and not us who are rejecting their authority.

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:55 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Florence states:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. (Council of Florence)

OK. And the point is?

Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger), while affirming a "simple hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants, does not believe that infants who might die in original sin alone "go down straightaway to hell [of the damned] to be punished":

Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell [of the damned], but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. ... They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo.

[John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the [1995] encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament."
(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, pp. 401-402)

So, is he a "heretic"? Has he denied a "defined dogma"? Should he be receiving Communion? Are you in communion with him? Would he be welcomed at the St. Benedict Center as the Vicar of Christ whose very person (and faith) is the foundation of faith and communion for the entire Church?

I'm just getting you primed for your responses which follow.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Btw, can you show me where the Church has defined that "original sin alone" can apply only to unbaptized infants?
Who, then, does "in original sin alone" apply to? Are you saying that it is impossible for someone to depart this life "in original sin alone"? If so, then the Council of Florence was teaching a theological hypothetical, no? That is, that Council was teaching something which never happens in reality.

It applies to all of those "who depart this life in original sin alone". I am not required to tell you "who" they are, or to expand upon what is written, but only to understand it as the Church understands it.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:And do tell us, Jehanne, did that place in hell where unbaptized infants go who suffer the mildest forms of eternal sensory torments (the doctrine that was taught for the first eight centuries by the Latin Church) become a "null set" when it was replaced by the limbo of eternal natural bliss (which you have attempted to sell as "a way of salvation") where the devil cannot take dominion over these same infants?
Yes, Mike, you have made progress, haven't you?! For now you realize that the teaching of Saint Augustine (which he himself modified throughout his life) never gained widespread acceptance in the East, so Saint Augustine's teaching was never universally taught by "all the theologians," hence, it never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians, which is likely what Saint Thomas and others felt that they were free to modify it somewhat.

What do you mean I "have made progress"? Since when have I denied that there has been a legitimate development of doctrine that continues even to this day? In fact, I seem to remember saying that very thing on numerous occasions, and will say it again, count on it. Furthermore, I'm the one who convinced you that the Eastern Fathers did not accept "hell" as an option for unbaptized infants as you tried to convince me that the Hell of the Limbo of the Children was "implied" in their teaching, thus making it universal. Nope.

The Eastern Fathers did not teach "the limbo of the children", in any form; and in fact some Fathers believed that all such children would eventually be saved, so it "never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians", which is why the Magisterium "felt that they were free to modify it somewhat".

See how easy this is?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Can you point out where the Church has defined that any Catholic is allowed to reject the magisterial teachings of the Church by appealing to private interpretations of dogma, or by setting the Magisterium of one pope against that of another, as if they can be opposed in non-reformable matters of faith and morals?
Once again, Mike, I am only going to defend the teachings of Father Feeney and not some of his "followers"; as I pointed-out to you numerous times, those true followers of Father Feeney enjoy full communion with the Pope, Bishop of Rome.

So everything you say is a reflection of the teachings of Fr. Feeney, since you are obviously qualified to be his official spokesperson.

In other words, you are not prepared to answer my questions unless they pertain directly to the teachings of Fr. Feeney.

If I want to address the specific teachings of Fr. Feeney, I'll make it clear when I do so, as I always do. Please stop wasting my time.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Did you know that those who do this have been anathematized by the Church?
Once again, none of the three communities who are "direct descendants" of Father Feeney labor under any canonical penalties whatsoever.

Once again, I don't care, and this has absolutely nothing to do with my questions.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Can you point out where the Church has defined that the religious submission of the mind and will is not required of non-revealed but universally taught doctrines of the living, authentic Magisterium?
Once again, does anything which Father Feeney taught in his The Bread of Life contradict the Church's authentic Magisterium? If so, why is His Excellency, Bishop Robert McManu, giving the Sacrament of Confirmation to a bunch of individuals who, in your view, are heretics?

Jehanne, you are being obtuse. You understand nothing.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Do you agree with Brian Kelly who said that the Magisterium has never taught baptism of blood or baptism of desire?
The Church's Magisterium has definitively taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood, however, are we still allowed to believe that the One and Triune God will ensure sacramental Baptism for each and every one of those individuals who receive the grace of Baptism through desire alone? I would say, "Yes!"; if you disagree, then write the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.

The Magisterium, you say, "DEFINITIVELY" teaches (de fide) baptism of desire/baptism of blood, and the St. Benedict Center accepts the teachings as well, and yet, they do not understand it in the same sense as the Church, and in fact deny the salvific efficacy for each, though they certainly consider the competing "opinion" of the Church as "orthodox"!

So what you are telling me is that A) the St. Benedict Center does not actually deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or B) It does not matter because "Bishop Robert McManu", gave "the Sacrament of Confirmation to a bunch of individuals" who probably have no idea of the fine details of what the St. Benedict Center NH actually holds, and neither does the Bishop. And as long as it is presented as a "theological opinion" having no weight whatsoever, there is no direct denial of a dogma, and everyone is happy.

I simply cut through the smoke and expose what I believe is heterodoxy for the reasons indicated. If you don't like it, too bad, mount a challenge, call your boss, whatever, but please stop this incessant "defense" of the various houses of the St. Benedict Center as if I am mounting an attack. Stop it.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
“St. Vincent claims from 1 Cor. 12:27-28 that whoever rejects the ecclesial authority of those persons in the Church whom God has placed in their office, whether Apostles, prophets, or doctors, despises not man, but God. To despise those who were appointed by God as teachers and preachers in His Church, when they are unanimous in Christ in the interpretation of some one point of Catholic doctrine, despises God because unity in the truth comes from God through the persons God has established in the various offices of His Church.

(http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/#identity)
Once again, these same "ecclesial authorities" are the ones who are granting the Sacraments to individuals whom you claim are heretics. In this respect, it is you and not us who are rejecting their authority.

I DON'T CARE! and wish them all the best. I never once claimed that those receiving the sacraments are "heretics", and I resent these continuous scurrilous charges against me. Even if I believed that there were true obstinate heretics at the St. Benedict Center, which I do NOT, so what?

George Brenner Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:47 pm

Columba and Jehanne,

It is my opinion that in many ways the following link on baptism and the secondary link on top which links to a hypothetical Vatican III ,to a great degree fairly well summarizes most/all of your positions and beliefs. I personally believe in the posts of MRyan as well as I can grasp them as being true and proof that our Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. The problem and sorrow that I have is that those in the Church have not taught the faith with simple clarity and accuracy as it existed before VII. My conclusion is that we have been in a very long punishment for lack of reverence.

Un-baptized Saints? - The Catholic Vox --- a call for Vatican ...
A case in point is Saint Patrick. He was not a martyr, ... strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized.
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2011/06/un-baptized-saints.html - Cached

JMJ,

George

Jehanne Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:04 pm

Mike,

This is a "Feeneyite" board; why are you even posting here? Why almost 2,000 posts over the past two years? Stop wasting our time; go over to CA, if you wish. Rasha set this board up and defined the subcategory of this subforum:

Discuss the thrice-defined ex cathedra doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the history of the St. Benedict Center, the relation of baptism of desire and baptism of blood to the absolute necessity of water baptism, etc.

You don't agree, fine; then don't. The CCC states this about the Sacrament of Confirmation:

1319 A candidate for Confirmation who has attained the age of reason must profess the faith, be in the state of grace, have the intention of receiving the sacrament, and be prepared to assume the role of disciple and witness to Christ, both within the ecclesial community and in temporal affairs.

In light of this, what you state about Bishop McManu is pure calumny and arrogance:

MRyan wrote:So what you are telling me is that A) the St. Benedict Center does not actually deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or B) It does not matter because "Bishop Robert McManu", gave "the Sacrament of Confirmation to a bunch of individuals" who probably have no idea of the fine details of what the St. Benedict Center NH actually holds, and neither does the Bishop. And as long as it is presented as a "theological opinion" having no weight whatsoever, there is no direct denial of a dogma, and everyone is happy.

It is just absurd that Bishop McManu does not understand the teachings of Father Feeney and/or the views of a religious house in his diocese, and yet you, a layperson, supposedly understand Father Feeney better than do his own followers. It is also absurd to claim that Bishop McManu is bestowing sacramental Confirmation upon those whom he knows to be denying de fide dogmas of the Catholic faith.

MRyan wrote:The Eastern Fathers did not teach "the limbo of the children", in any form; and in fact some Fathers believed that all such children would eventually be saved, so it "never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians", which is why the Magisterium "felt that they were free to modify it somewhat".

This is false per the ITC report:

13. Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, but he enlarges the subject with another consideration. He writes, namely, that these children receive neither praise nor punishment from the Just Judge, because they have suffered injury rather than provoked it. “The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment”.[20] The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: “It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands”.[21]

14. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So, clearly, the Greek Fathers taught that infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven. As for what Pope John Paul II "taught," he retracted it:

After Pope John Paul II's retraction, in the final and definitive version of Evangelium Vitae #99 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 87 [1995] p. 515) of the initial version's statement that aborted babies "now live in the Lord" (i.e., are in Heaven), it appears that the only papal statement expressly mentioning the destiny of aborted infants is that of Pope Sixtus V, whose Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588 not only abstains from raising any hopes that they may attain the beatific vision, but positively affirms that they do not attain it!

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:28 pm

Columba,

So, it is as bad as I thought and I was correct in assuming that there was something terribly unsettling in your understanding of justification under the old dispensation.

You deny that “justification” under the old dispensation consisted of a state of sanctifying grace.

You realize of course that this so-called graceless “translation” to “prevenient grace”, whatever that means, can only mean:

“It is indeed [NOT] true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”;

It means there was no remission of sins and there was no “justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”; there was no "pouring Himself forth” or bestowing of “His gifts"; and 'the Holy Ghost” did not "communicate Himself in such a way" as "to dwell in the saints".

It means there was only the assisting or prevenient graces of the Holy Ghost, and this is called “justification” under the old dispensation.

Sigh.

The Holy Ghost, Columba, did not reside and dwell IN the saints by prevenient grace. Neither can anyone whose "justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come" NOT be in a state of grace (or in original sin).

Anyway, I have to take a break and may not be back for a couple of days, we’ll see.

MRyan Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:59 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

This is a "Feeneyite" board; why are you even posting here?

Because I can.

Get over it, or go away. Quit acting like you control this forum. Are you on that power kick again?

Jehanne wrote:Rasha set this board up and defined the subcategory of this subforum:

Discuss the thrice-defined ex cathedra doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the history of the St. Benedict Center, the relation of baptism of desire and baptism of blood to the absolute necessity of water baptism, etc.

That is precisely what I am doing, so what is your problem?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
[W]hat you state about Bishop McManu is pure calumny and arrogance:
So what you are telling me is that A) the St. Benedict Center does not actually deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or B) It does not matter because "Bishop Robert McManu", gave "the Sacrament of Confirmation to a bunch of individuals" who probably have no idea of the fine details of what the St. Benedict Center NH actually holds, and neither does the Bishop. And as long as it is presented as a "theological opinion" having no weight whatsoever, there is no direct denial of a dogma, and everyone is happy.
It is just absurd that Bishop McManu does not understand the teachings of Father Feeney and/or the views of a religious house in his diocese, and yet you, a layperson, supposedly understand Father Feeney better than do his own followers. It is also absurd to claim that Bishop McManu is bestowing sacramental Confirmation upon those whom he knows to be denying de fide dogmas of the Catholic faith.

Listen, this isn't the first time you accused me of calumny against a diocesan Bishop and we both know that that you have no idea of what the word actually means, but you have no problem making the accusation, changing the facts and smearing me.

I did not accuse anyone among the various religious houses of "denying de fide dogmas of the Catholic faith". Look up what I actually said, you shameless provocateur.

I specifically said "individuals who probably have no idea of the fine details of what the St. Benedict Center NH actually holds". I did not mention Fr. Feeney and I did not mention the "religious house in his diocese", I was referring specifically to the "leadership" of the St. Benedict Center, NH and their teaching on the non-efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, the theological details of which you once accused me of having culled from the comments section of an "obscure" internet "blog".

So if it was so "obscure" to you, why wouldn't it be "obscure" to anyone else, including the Bishop who I doubt reads the comments section of the blog of the St. Benedict Center, NH, or the fuzzy details of an old article from Bro. Michael that may be taken as pure speculation, and nothing else?

I really am tiring of your scurrilous accusations when you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll leave this forum of my own free will - so stop goading me.

MRyan Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:02 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:The Eastern Fathers did not teach "the limbo of the children", in any form; and in fact some Fathers believed that all such children would eventually be saved, so it "never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians", which is why the Magisterium "felt that they were free to modify it somewhat".

This is false per the ITC report:

13. Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, but he enlarges the subject with another consideration. He writes, namely, that these children receive neither praise nor punishment from the Just Judge, because they have suffered injury rather than provoked it. “The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment”.[20] The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: “It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands”.[21]

14. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So, clearly, the Greek Fathers taught that infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven.

You tell me it is "false", and then provide the evidence from the ITC report that validates it is TRUE: the Eastern Fathers did NOT teach the "Limbo of the Children". But now you have once again changed the subject and say "the Greek Fathers taught that infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven".

I never said they taught otherwise, but that's NOT what we are talking about. The fact that the Fathers "do not explain what their state is like or where they go" does NOT mean that they taught the "Limbo of the Children". The western Fathers tried to answer the question, the Greek Fathers did NOT, that's the point. Limbo is not some universal "default" position. This is just one more of your logical fallacies.

Jehanne wrote:
As for what Pope John Paul II "taught," he retracted it:

There you go again, he "retracted" what? He actually didn't "retract" anything, but had the language softened so it did not appear he was suggesting some definitive assurance of salvation. Theologians still use either version.

And what did I say about the teaching of Pope JPII who approved the CCC? You give me the "opinion" of Fr. Harrison who was for the possible salvation of aborted infants before he "retracted" it; so what? He apparently believes that the Constitution Effrænatam provides some quasi-definitive magisterial affirmation that aborted infants do not [as in "cannot"] attain salvation, when his opinion is not shared by other theologians, and it is not shared by the ITC or the pope.

MRyan Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:34 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:The Eastern Fathers did not teach "the limbo of the children", in any form; and in fact some Fathers believed that all such children would eventually be saved, so it "never enjoyed a sententia certa amongst all of the Church's theologians", which is why the Magisterium "felt that they were free to modify it somewhat".

This is false per the ITC report:

13. Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism,
So, clearly, the Greek Fathers taught that infants who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven.

When I said that "some Fathers believed that all such children would eventually be saved", I was referring to those such as Origen and Greogory of Nyssa who speculated on "universal reconciliation" (apokatastasis), and was not referring to Gregory of Nazianzus and the majority of the Fathers. The ITC report does not dispute this.

If I am closing in on 2000 posts, it is because a good many of them are spent refuting the false allegations, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies such as yours. Some things just never change.

Jehanne Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

MRyan wrote:I never said they taught otherwise, but that's NOT what we are talking about. The fact that the Fathers "do not explain what their state is like or where they go" does NOT mean that they taught the "Limbo of the Children". The western Fathers tried to answer the question, the Greek Fathers did NOT, that's the point. Limbo is not some universal "default" position. This is just one more of your logical fallacies.

Limbo = "not Heaven" -- that was the default position.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:As for what Pope John Paul II "taught," he retracted it:
There you go again, he "retracted" what? He actually didn't "retract" anything, but had the language softened so it did not appear he was suggesting some definitive assurance of salvation. Theologians still use either version.

Well, shame on them! Even you have admitted that the Latin version is "more authoritative".

MRyan wrote:And what did I say about the teaching of Pope JPII who approved the CCC?

And, everything in the CCC is now de fide? (How about the Roman Catechism which taught that infant children who die without sacramental Baptism do not go to Heaven? Is that teaching de fide?) None of it is reformable? Are you saying that it is now impossible for the present Pope or his successor to make an ex cathedra declaration on the Limbo of the Children, that is, that such a place exists and contains souls of infant children who have died without sacramental Baptism?

MRyan wrote:You give me the "opinion" of Fr. Harrison who was for the possible salvation of aborted infants before he "retracted" it; so what? He apparently believes that the Constitution Effrænatam provides some quasi-definitive magisterial affirmation that aborted infants do not [as in "cannot"] attain salvation, when his opinion is not shared by other theologians, and it is not shared by the ITC or the pope.

Then they believe that North America is imaginary or that the Moon does not exist and is an illusion. Or, that the Sun does not provide the Earth with heat and light. Who cares??? If the Limbo of the Children truly exists, then it exists! Who cares what the Pope or his modernist chum theologians think?! Do you honestly think that the Limbo of the Children is just going to "disappear" because a person does not believe in it???

The Truth will prevail at the Last Judgment. You will "bow your head" in shame for having rejected Tradition, or at least for having failed to reaffirm it:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e012rp_Limbo24Reasons.html

columba Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:06 pm

SESSION VI, CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TWIMC,
In the above chapter of Trent I came across something I had missed all along.

Take note of the highlighted words.
The chapter is speaking about how the translation of the impius to a state of justifcation takes place. It takes place by the Laver of Regeneration and the desire for it. It cannot take place without the Laver of Regeneration or the desire for it.

"So what?" I hear you say.
Let me explain. Mike says (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Baptism of Desire, to be efficacious unto salvation, must include faith, animated by charity and true repentance for past sins. These attributes (we are told) bring the soul to a state of pre-baptismal justification.

Here's the problem. The chapter is speaking about the impius and how they (the impius) are translated to a state of justification. It is not speaking about those who have been already justified through a pre-baptismal faith animated by charity; it's talking about the impius.. In other words; the non-justified.

This adds a whole new understanding to the words, "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it," for it is now obvious (in light of who is being considered here, i.e, the impius) that the word "desire" has to refer to a disposition that must be present (in an adult) for the sacrament to be valid.

The "impius" could not receive Baptism unto justification if they did not desire to receive the sacrament in the first place. The chapter is clearing up any misunderstanding that Baptism can be validly administered against the will of the recipient. The chapter makes no mention of those baptism of desire candidates (who, in Mike's book, are already justified through faith animated by charity) who through some misfortune or other cannot receive the sacrament. No. The chapter deals only with the translation of the impius.

The baptism of desire brigade will have to come up with another passage in support of their doctrine; a passage that actually deals with those who are already in a state of pre-baptismal justification for it is plain for all to see that chapter 4 deals only with the translation of the impius.

I'll let that stew for a while.

MRyan Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:14 pm

I love it Columba, when you say such things as “the baptism of desire brigade”, as if there is any other “brigade” of Catholics that does not affirm with the Church that a state of sanctifying grace can be effected by faith, charity and intention – “the desire thereof” for baptism.

Such belief is affirmed by the Doctors, the saints and a universal moral consensus of theologians (not a single dissenting voice since Trent dogmatically defined "justification"); it is affirmed in the Church’s Liturgy (e.g., The Feast of the Holy Innocents and The Roman Martyrology); it is spelled out in the Summa Sententiarum of Hugo of St. Victor, the Sentences of Peter Lombard and the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas; it is infallibly affirmed in the “Ex omnibus afflictionibus" of Pope St. Pius V; it is affirmed by Pope Innocent III in the Canon Apostolicam; it is spelled out in the Liber II, Caput XXX of St. Robert Bellarmine and in the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori; it is dogmatically affirmed in Trent, Session VI, Ch. 4 and Session 7, Canon IV; it is infallibly affirmed in the two universal Roman Catechisms of the Catholic Church (Trent and VCII) promulgated some 600 years apart; it is spelled out in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law; it is spelled out in Haydock as well as in the respective Rheims and Douhay official commentaries on John 3:5; it is spelled out in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X; it is infallibly affirmed by Pope Pius XII in his Allocution to mid-wives; and, we could go on and on with such testimonies.

Columba’s “brigade”, however, would seem to consist of Duckbill, Peter Abelard and the condemned heretic Baius.

Speaking of which, in his discussion of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, the Spanish Dominican Fr. Marin Solà wrote:

Adversaries: Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water.’ Baius also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.”

Against the second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its effect. (De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954], 69. His emphasis.)

Fr. Solà simply confirms what St. Alphonsus Liguori and at least nine other accredited theologians also affirmed, when not hesitating to call this doctrine “de fide”. And if not necessarily “de fide” there is not a single theologian since Trent that anyone can point to who does not hold the doctrine as “true”.

And, btw, it is precisely that doctrine “or the desire thereof” on the translation to justification that is dogmatically defined de fide by the Council of Trent, which is why Pope Pius XII teaches, for example, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and why the CCC teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”; and this is why Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared that "nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external".

But it is the infallible magisterial Encyclical “On the Holy Ghost”, Divinum Illud Munus, by Pope Leo XIII that completely demolishes Columba’s novel heterodoxy that says the justice enjoyed by the saints, e.g., “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, was NOT “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, at least not until our Lord came and actually redeemed the human race and instituted the sacrament of Baptism, the sole means by which the merits of his redemption can be applied.

Columba's doctrine effectively leaves the massa damnata (the justified saints of the old law) in a state of original sin, and NOT as justified children of God (though not yet adopted sons) in whom the Holy Ghost “resided by grace” and whose justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come” by the “communication of the Holy Ghost”.

Just so we're clear, Columba tells us the justified saints (the massa damnata) were left in some sort of “pre-justified” state of “prevenient” or assisting grace that disposes one for the reception of grace, but does not actually remove original sin or justify/sanctify anyone by the communication of “the merits of Christ who was to come”.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (Stl, II, Q 106, A 1, ad 3; Of the Law of the Gospel, Called the New Law, Considered in Itself)

Columba simply re-writes the Encyclical of Leo XIII and dismisses the greatest Doctor of Theologians, but what else is new?

And now Columba has another one of his Gnostic-like eureka moments while reading again Trent’s Session VI, Ch. 4, and has gained some new insight that seems to have escaped all of the above named magisterial and accredited authorities, even all of the Doctors and theologians, to include the Fathers of Trent who wrote its Catechism and affirmed the universal understanding of this same dogmatic passage in Chapter 4 of Trent's Session VI.

And what is this new insight that we are supposed to let “stew …for awhile”?

Columba wrote:
Let me explain. Mike says (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that Baptism of Desire, to be efficacious unto salvation, must include faith, animated by charity and true repentance for past sins. These attributes (we are told) bring the soul to a state of pre-baptismal justification.

Just to be clear, it brings a soul to a state of “extra-baptismal justification” by re-birth in the grace of Baptism.

There is no such thing as a “pre-baptismal justification” that does not apply the merits of Christ’s passion or places one in a state of sanctifying grace.

If you mean by “pre-baptismal justification” a state of sanctifying grace that may be effected prior to water Baptism, OK.

Columba wrote:
Here's the problem. The chapter is speaking about the impius and how they (the impius) are translated to a state of justification. It is not speaking about those who have been already justified through a pre-baptismal faith animated by charity; it's talking about the impius.. In other words; the non-justified.

This is problematic on more than one level. The Council is indeed providing a dogmatic “description … of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” As such, the Council is affirming that under the law of grace, the impious are justified by the laver of regeneration, or its desire (faith, charity, intention).

And this is the same internal regeneration (re-birth) affirmed by Christ in His decree “unless a man be born again by … [communication of the merits of] the Holy Ghost”, with “by water and the Holy Ghost” (the sacrament) being the external sign (of signification) and ordinary means of internal regeneration; the sacrament of which He instituted for our redemption and incorporation into His Body that we may participate in the sacramental life of the Church, and, ultimately, will result in our glorification.

This is why the esteemed Fr. O'Kane, speaking with the universal moral consensus of theologians, and with the Church, teaches:

There is no other means (baptism of blood and baptism of desire) of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament.

Continuing:

Columba wrote:
This adds a whole new understanding to the words, "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it," for it is now obvious (in light of who is being considered here, i.e, the impius) that the word "desire" has to refer to a disposition that must be present (in an adult) for the sacrament to be valid.

Over 600 years later we have a “whole new understanding” that is obvious to Columba, but to no one else, and for very good reason!

Columba, get it through your thick Irish head that this particular dogmatic passage has NOTHING to do with validity of the sacrament, for the only disposition that can render the sacrament invalid (which is not even the subject) is the disposition of the person administrating the sacrament who does not have the intention to do what the Church does, to baptize “In the name of the Father and …”.

You in fact prove my point and render your own argument entirely worthless when you say “the word ‘desire’ has to refer to a disposition that must be present (in an adult) for the sacrament to be valid”, for if the disposition of the “impious” is in any way contrary to a right faith, contrition and desire, then the sacrament is still valid, but the grace of justification is not given.

This newly baptized member of the Catholic Church, in other words, is “still-born”, with no vivifying charity that can revive his dead faith until he repents and receives absolution in the sacrament of Penance, or by “the desire thereof” through a perfect contrition (if the sacrament is unavailable). Hey, that sounds familiar.

So yes, please stew on that for awhile; and perhaps you should spend more time reading and trying to understand what the Church and her theologians actually teach before taking it upon yourself to dissect the dogmatic passages of the Church that you apparently have not the competency to understand.

However, with personable "theology" and private interpretation given free reign today, not matter how loopy, it would be most uncharitable of me to tell someone that they have it completely wrong; but seriously, Columba, your "theology" is appalling, and your latest in a long line of errors is most egregious.

Sponsored content