Rethink "Feeneyism"?

tornpage Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:21 pm

Been a while . . . a long while.

Does the example of Pope Francis's magisterial "teaching" provide a lesson about ordinary magisterial teachings which vindicate the Feeneyite position or at least show that position more meritorious (by saying that I am not saying it was not meritorious to begin with)?

All those "manuals," teaching of theologians of the Church, catechisms, etc. that were used against the Feeneyite position . . . is the weight of their non-infallible authority contra Feeneyism severely diminished as a consequence of what we see a pope and his magisterium teaching now?

Let's see if there's any sharks in the water . . . no, old friends who want to revisit some of these things in the light of the pontificate of Pope F.

tornpage

MRyan Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:46 am

Tornpage,

Is there life left in the old stomping grounds?

Actually, the more relevant and accurate parallel I see tends to vindicate the ordinary universal teachings on the baptisms of blood and desire (‘found in all those "manuals," teaching of theologians of the Church, catechisms, etc. that were used against the Feeneyite position’) in the sense that ‘all those "manuals," teaching of theologians of the Church, catechisms, etc.' also militate against the Francis novelty (heresy) of granting Holy Communion to the civilly divorced and remarried who remain in an objective state of mortal sin.

This is not to compare the “rigorous” Feenyeite interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (which ends up, even if not intentionally, denying Trent’s Sess. 6, Ch 4 by rendering the state of justification “by the desire thereof” into a non-salvific and thus defective unfulfilled form of sanctifying grace that does not make one a true son of God and heir to the Kingdom) with Francis’ “solemn nonsense”, but to point out the simple fact that both are in error because both do in fact militate against the universal ordinary teachings of the Church.

But other questions are raised, for example, when Cardinal Burke said that Amoris Laetitia is NOT a magisterial document, he appears to be saying that only ex cathedra or definitive teachings can be considered acts of the infallible papal magisterium, everything else is open to error, as implausible as this once seemed.

Is he correct? Another school says all teachings on faith and morals that are found in official papal documents and promulgated for the universal church are by definition (and necessity), infallible, at least in the sense they cannot be opposed to established doctrine or give harm to the Church. I can think of nothing more harmful to the Church than the division over AL, and a Pope who refuses to rectify a scandalous situation of his own making.

But, getting back to the Feeneyite position, I see a strong parallel between the baptism of desire gone amok theory that says a Christ-denying Jew, Muslim or atheist can at the same time be in a state of sanctifying grace due to “invisible ignorance”, and the divorced and re-married adulterer who can be said to be in a state of sanctifying grace after subjectively discerning (making excuses for, even under the guidance of a priest) that his objective adultery is not actually adultery.

In both cases we see subjective dispositions take precedence over objective truth/actions.

Mike

tornpage Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:34 pm

Hey, Mike, yeah, let's see if anything gets going here.

Mryan wrote:the universal ordinary teachings of the Church.

Yes, that is the issue, "universal," both as to time and space, yes? Something in a "manual" or catechism, even if it represents a contemporary consensus, would fail if it doesn't meet that test . This seems to be confirmed by the increasing "error" put forth by the Conciliar Church, as now manifested in the latest papacy.

Vatican I

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

If Peter can "err" making known some "new doctrine," of course theologians, bishops, etc. can "err" as well if they teach something "new." This has always been the "Feeneyite" position contra the sedes who maintain that a simple spatial and contemporary consensus or official teaching has the protection of the Holy Ghost.

The truth has been handed down and is diachronic.

Yes, you and I have agreed in the past that a "rigorous" Feeneyism that denies the possibility of a salvific baptism in the Spirit without the sacrament contradicts Trent. I am rethinking that. And of course we have to be careful defining Feeneyism. For example, the article of Mr. Karam way back in the beginning didn't deny the possibility of salvation to someone who (for example, a catechumen) explicitly desired baptism but somehow didn't make it - again, I believe he acknowledged that under such a case there would be salvation.

If one recognizes the necessity for a diachronic extension of the revealed, and also recognizes the possibility of error where the magisterium departs from the same - and this has been borne out oh so emphatically under Pope Francis - it seems that a Feeneyite position, even the "rigorous" than one that asserts the impossibility of salvation without water baptism, is thoroughly justified.

There is simply no diachronic "revelation" that baptism of desire in fact saves - do I need to get the Father Jurgens quote in full on the necessity of water baptism with the Fathers being "so constant as to constitute revelation"? - so the rigorist Feeneyite position also would seem to be perfectly orthodox, though subject to dispute. It would deny a reading of Trent that subsequent "ordinary" magisteriums have rendered, but this is the point: we see how a current magisterium interprets revelation, and unless you want to arbitrarily drawn a line in the sand at V2 or take the sede position that the Conciliar Church is not the true Church, I believe the Feeneyite view is vindicated by the "teaching" of the current magisterium - I mean both what it teaches and what it should teach us.

tornpage

tornpage Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:42 pm

Mike,

MRyan wrote:But other questions are raised, for example, when Cardinal Burke said that Amoris Laetitia is NOT a magisterial document, he appears to be saying that only ex cathedra or definitive teachings can be considered acts of the infallible papal magisterium, everything else is open to error, as implausible as this once seemed.

Is he correct?

Again, that is the focus and gets to the issue.

I say, yes, what Cardinal Burke says is borne out here.

It seeming "implausible" in the past and now being plausible (to say the least) is why I raise this now.

tornpage Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:43 pm

MRyan wrote:But, getting back to the Feeneyite position, I see a strong parallel between the baptism of desire gone amok theory that says a Christ-denying Jew, Muslim or atheist can at the same time be in a state of sanctifying grace due to “invisible ignorance”, and the divorced and re-married adulterer who can be said to be in a state of sanctifying grace after subjectively discerning (making excuses for, even under the guidance of a priest) that his objective adultery is not actually adultery.

Excellent.

Lionel L. Andrades Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:59 am

We could re-think Feeneyism and clarify that the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus since there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality in 2017. What has an invisible case to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
It is the same with the past. Who could have seen St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water and with the baptism of desire or saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water. ?
What is the point of argueing about the pros and cons of baptism of desire when there are no baptism of desire cases.
The case of the catechumen who sought the baptism of desire before he died will always be a theoretical case.
So how can a theoretical case be an explicit exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in 1949, 1965 or June 2017?

tornpage Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm

Hi, Lionel.

I am not "arguing about the pro and cons of baptism of desire."

I am making a specific point: there is no infallible teaching regarding baptism of desire beyond Trent (I think we can now say "arguably" to an extent we couldn't before). The support for baptism of desire, and the argument of its supporters, is that the ordinary, teaching Magisterium, in catechisms, or a letter of the Holy Office (the infamous 1949 letter), etc., and the unchallenged (by the Magisterium) unanimity of the theologians in their manuals, all put a stamp of baptism on desire that makes it part of the Catholic Truth.

The current Magisterium of Pope Francis now almost clearly has embraced error with regard to matrimony and the receipt of the sacraments.

What does this tell us about ordinary magisterial teaching regarding baptism of desire? Is the position of the BODists, resting upon a organ of the teaching Church that is now shown to be capable of error, i.e. the ordinary Magisterium, thereby undermined? Do these events provide ammunition to, and breath life into, the "Feeneyite" argument?

I hate using that word ("Feeneyite") but defer to its utility.

Anyway, I am not arguing the merits or not of baptism of desire.

Lionel L. Andrades Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:47 am

OH THAT BAPTISM OF DESIRE !

Hi TP,

We agree that the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and so you do not want to discuss its pros and cons here?
________________________________________
I am not "arguing about the pro and cons of baptism of desire."

I am making a specific point: there is no infallible teaching regarding baptism of desire beyond Trent (I think we can now say "arguably" to an extent we couldn't before).

Lionel: So it is not an infallible teaching for you and neither is it relevant to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?
__________________________________________
The support for baptism of desire, and the argument of its supporters, is that the ordinary, teaching Magisterium, in catechisms, or a letter of the Holy Office (the infamous 1949 letter), etc., and the unchallenged (by the Magisterium) unanimity of the theologians in their manuals, all put a stamp of baptism on desire that makes it part of the Catholic Truth.

Lionel: But relevant to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for all of them even though there could not be any physically seen baptism of desire for them ?

_______________________________________________

The current Magisterium of Pope Francis now almost clearly has embraced error with regard to matrimony and the receipt of the sacraments.

What does this tell us about ordinary magisterial teaching regarding baptism of desire? Is the position of the BODists, resting upon a organ of the teaching Church that is now shown to be capable of error, i.e. the ordinary Magisterium, thereby undermined? Do these events provide ammunition to, and breath life into, the "Feeneyite" argument?

Lionel: However like the 'Feeneyites' they assume baptism of desire is relevant to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ?

MRyan Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:45 am

tornpage wrote:
I am not "arguing about the pro and cons of baptism of desire."

I am making a specific point: there is no infallible teaching regarding baptism of desire beyond Trent (I think we can now say "arguably" to an extent we couldn't before). The support for baptism of desire, and the argument of its supporters, is that the ordinary, teaching Magisterium, in catechisms, or a letter of the Holy Office (the infamous 1949 letter), etc., and the unchallenged (by the Magisterium) unanimity of the theologians in their manuals, all put a stamp of baptism on desire that makes it part of the Catholic Truth.

Sorry, but the statement seems to me to be a bit disingenuous. To say that “there is no infallible teaching regarding baptism of desire beyond Trent” suggests that the dogma embodied in Trent’s Session 6, Ch 4 [that declares de fide that there is both a sacramental and an extra-sacramental means of justification (in re or in voto)] stands alone in some dogmatic vacuum, thus rendering it irrelevant to the doctrines (the baptisms of blood and desire) which are logical expressions flowing from this same dogma.

But that is precisely what some Feeneyites do when they admit in principle that Trent does in fact dogmatically proclaim the truth of an extra-sacramental justification “by the desire thereof”, but then turn right around and deny that the dogma has any practical relevancy/effects (by saying that a state of grace without actual ablution is insufficient for salvation) or that this same state of grace is actually a defective species of sanctifying grace that does not truly make the justified soul a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

This has the odor of heresy.

And here we are arguing about whether the ordinary magisterium is infallible, as if this particular dogma proposed by Trent on justification is irrelevant to the (at least) morally universal (across time) doctrine that clearly expresses the practical effects of the dogma in action, for example, when the Catechism of Trent teaches that an ardent love and zeal for the sacrament and a repentance for past sins (embodied in supernatural faith and charity) “will avail them to grace and righteousness” when an unforeseen accident prevents them from being washed in the salutary waters.

Obviously, the Catechism of Trent is not formulating a dogmatic definition, but to suggest that this same doctrinal teaching can be false, meaning that supernatural faith and charity cannot avail a soul to the salvific grace of justification without the salutary waters is to deny in effect Session 6, Ch. 4 by suggesting, once again, that the dogma has no practical application because no one can be saved by this same “insufficient” species of justification defined by Trent.

In the Feeneyite world, that leaves the yet-to-be sacramentally baptized blood martyr who dies expressing his faith and ardent love of Christ - out in the cold, or should we say in the heat of everlasting perdition, simply because the ordinary instrumental cause of justification is applied, according to the Council of Trent, by the justifying desire for same sacrament when, as the same Councils’ Catechism teaches, “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters”.

MRyan Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:45 pm

Lionel L. Andrades wrote:
The case of the catechumen who sought the baptism of desire before he died will always be a theoretical case.

The case of the baptized adult Catholic who sought the grace of final perseverance and dies in a state of sanctifying grace will always be a theoretical case unless and until he/her is formally canonized (just like the non-sacramentally baptized martyrs who are recognized among the blessed in the Roman Martyrology).

Step up to the plate and show us a non-theoretical case of a non-canonized baptized adult Catholic who sought and gained the grace of final perseverance.

MRyan Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:50 am

In his post the “Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre” (Sept. 26, 2015), Lionel wrote:

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger assumed LG 16 referred to visible and known cases, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. … This was irrationality and heresy and it was official. It was a magisterial error.

Well, I suppose it would be “irrationality and heresy” if were actually true, but it isn’t true, for LG 16 assumes no such thing. Lionel simply assumes LG16 assumes irrationality and heresy, otherwise known as the sin of presumption in claiming to know “visible and known cases [of those] saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.”

The Church does not “know” with certainty of any such “visible” cases, neither among the baptized nor the non-baptized, with the exception of those who were formally canonized, or are recognized by Tradition as martyrs, to include those who died for Christ “while still a Catechumen”, or those whose conversions were on-the-spot but were prevented by time and/or circumstance from receiving water baptism.

Lionel L. Andrades wrote:The Magisterium had overlooked something simple. People in Heaven cannot be exceptions on earth [meaning …] Persons in Heaven cannot be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, all needing to be 'card carrying members' of the Catholic Church in 2015 to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.

Lionel extrapolates from this logical fallacy the idea that any magisterial teaching that posits that a desire for the sacrament that is animated by perfect charity (contrition) and supernatural faith may in fact translate a soul to a state of justification through these same bonds, and result in his salvation should water baptism be prevented by some necessity, must refer “to visible and known cases” of sanctified souls “saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church”, when this is simply false.

By teaching the objective truth that says the invisible bonds of supernatural faith and charity unite one to Christ, and by logical necessity, to His Church, and that these same bonds will result in the salvation of any adult who is prevented from receiving water baptism while desiring the same, the Church, once again, nowhere infers from this that any such sanctified soul is “visible and known” to us.

But Lionel keeps repeating this mantra as if it has some basis in reality, or has any relevance whatsoever, but can’t produce a single proof-text to back up his claim. He said it is “inferred”, not explicitly stated, and we know that to “assume” anything can make, well, you know what comes before “u” and “me”.

Lionel says “Since it is a fact of life, that there are no known cases, past or present, of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc cannot be exceptions to Tradition.”

It is also a fact of life that (with the exception of the canonized saints) there are no known cases, past or present, of baptized Catholics being saved. Yet, there are known cases of the baptized and non-baptized who were saved in the baptism of blood, and are recognized by the Church as such in her official Liturgy.

Actually, there are no “non-Catholics” in Heaven in the sense that one may be Catholic in one’s heart (internal incorporation to Christ’s Mystical Body) without necessarily becoming a “card carrying member”. This would apply to each and every soul who died united to Christ in grace prior to the Redemption, and to every aforementioned blood martyr who died in Christ without benefit of actual sacramental ablution (but with the benefit of its essential grace).

Furthermore, those who might be saved while in invincible ignorance of certain secondary Catholic truths, cannot be saved without at least a supernatural faith in the essential Catholic truths. And, among the blessed in heaven, there are none who are in invincible ignorance of any Catholic truths.

Lionel L. Andrades wrote: The error was clear during the pontificate of Pius XII and the seeds of the confusion were there in the Baltimore Catechism(1808).

You’ll have to go back a lot further than Pius XII if you are going to paint the Church with the brush of “error”, for the salvific doctrine on the baptism of blood is of such an ancient pedigree and has such a consistent universal lineage that there isn’t a single Feeneyite of any repute who would deny this fact. No, they simply deny the doctrine, just as they deny that Trent’s dogmatic declaration on the translation to justification “by the desire thereof” is referring to a “true” justification that makes one a true son of God and heir to the Kingdom.

MRyan Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:38 pm

In his book Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, Br. Robert Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert., cites Fr. Feeney in Bread of Life posing the following hypothetical:

Suppose a non-baptized person had his choice between Baptism of Water on the one hand, and what is called “Baptism of Blood” on the other. Were he not to choose Baptism of Water, the shedding of his blood would be useless and he would lose his soul. It is Christ’s Blood that counts in Redemption, and the fruits of it in application to Baptism. It is not our blood that counts at this foundational point. And it is only when we have received both the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist that Christ can be said to be shedding His Blood in one of us. This last is the real martyr, and the one who has preserved the Faith (p. 59).

Poor St. Thomas Aquinas would be shaking his head in sad disbelief at such a pharisaical understanding that actually declares blood martyrdom quite useless in effecting the end for which it is ordained (salvation) without the benefit of sacramental ablution.

Let’s see just how far afield is Fr. Feeney’s doctrine from the salutary teaching of the Angelic Doctor (and the Church), who taught in his Summa, III, Q66, A12 (Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these [three kinds of Baptism]?):

I answer that, As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water.

Pause. In Article 11, St. Thomas teaches that

“...Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him.”

Continuing with Article 12:

Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (III:11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire, but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends".

In fact, in Reply to Objection 2, St. Thomas writes:

it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.

As should be obvious, St. Thomas corrects all of Fr. Feeney’s false notions on the Baptism of Blood.

It is unfortunate that Fr. Feeney, only after just previously defending the traditional teachings of Aquinas on the Baptisms of Blood and Desire though the publication of Raymond Karam’s “Reply to Liberal”, would start a local revolution against these same doctrines out of a salutary zeal for defending the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus against its corrupters who were already poisoning the well in the 40’s by teaching that “The way to be saved is by being sincere to your convictions and leading a good life” and that “whatever you desire for yourself in the way of salvation, Catholic theologians are prepared to call ‘Baptism of Desire’. Were you to sincerely think that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ, it would be a sin for you to join it” (Letter to Pope Pius XII by Fr. Feeney, May 28, 1949; Br. Robert Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert., Fr. Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 5).

tornpage Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:02 am

Mike,

When the Holy Office letter was issued baptism of desire was not the issue. The issue was "implicit" desire joining one to the Church. Karam's article, which you mention in your last post, while somewhat ambiguous, recognized the teaching of the Fathers and allowed for an incorporation into the Church w/o water baptism under some 5 strict conditions.

Subsequent "development" by Father Feeney on baptism of desire was not involved in the original controversy and "judgment." So the hand was played before Fr. Feeney went on his extreme baptism of desire view, and Rome's attention was already garnered. Again, you recognize this in your last post.

My point in the op . . . I agree with you as to the possibility of incorporation into the Church with supernatural faith (explicit in Christ, i.e. the Trinity, and most likely His incarnation and Passion as well), but the possibility of it being otherwise is perhaps open: if the "ordinary" albeit authentic magisterium of the pope can err, there is the possibility of error regarding incorporation into the Church w/o water baptism.

I agree with you that Trent, particularly if you compare what it said about a perfect contrition with regard to penance, seems very strongly to say that a desire short of receipt of baptism may be sufficient, and the Roman Catechism sure reads it that way - a strong support for sure. But . . .

I for one cannot dismiss totally the rigorist Feeneyite view in light of, ah, even more recent developments. As Father Jurgens said - quoted by the Dimonds with great relish - the tradition among the Fathers of the necessity of water baptism is so strong as to practically amount to "revelation." This gives me pause in light of the now apparent truth that "authenthic" Magisterial pronouncements can be erroneous, and the "or" of the desire in Trent could mean, following "without," - possibly, mark you - that you can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich w/o peanut butter or jelly, or specifically here that you can't have the translation to justice w/o sacramantal baptism and the desire for the same.

Mind you, I said I cannot dismiss that possibility, and hold the rigorist Feeneyite view as unquestionably false.

"Implicit" faith and/or desire is the abomination that grounds the Holy Office letter, caused Fr. Feeney's censure, and brought the wrath of God on the Church. I think recent events show us lay Catholics who deferred (or shown too much deference) to magisterial statements allowing for "implicit" faith or desire to have sat on our hands unneccessarily.

For example, you certainly allow the possibility of error in the Holy Office letter now, yes?

MRyan Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:32 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

When the Holy Office letter was issued baptism of desire was not the issue. The issue was "implicit" desire joining one to the Church. Karam's article, which you mention in your last post, while somewhat ambiguous, recognized the teaching of the Fathers and allowed for an incorporation into the Church w/o water baptism under some 5 strict conditions.

Subsequent "development" by Father Feeney on baptism of desire was not involved in the original controversy and "judgment." So the hand was played before Fr. Feeney went on his extreme baptism of desire view, and Rome's attention was already garnered. Again, you recognize this in your last post.

Yes and no. Baptism of desire was the issue in the sense that one cannot separate the desire to enter the Church from Baptism, the sacrament of entrance into the Church. Thus, the “baptism of desire” (the translation to justification and incorporation through “the desire thereof” that is informed by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity) comes into play when some impediment blocks reception of the sacrament, or if a baptized non-Catholic who desires entry into the Church and possesses divine and Catholic faith (and charity) is prevented from formal entry through no fault of his own. The Holy Letter’s explication on an implicit desire to enter the Church makes sense only in the context of the baptism of desire.

It is true, Mr. Karam basically limited baptism of blood and desire to the catechumen who has an explicit desire to enter the Church and an explicit desire for baptism.

Think about that in light of the 40th martyr of Sebaste who was one of the soldiers guarding the original 40 martyrs who were forced onto the ice to be frozen to death; and upon witnessing this heroic martyrdom, professed his faith in the God of the Christians and voluntarily took the place of one of the 40 who got “cold feet”.

Now, is such a heroic act of faith and charity in any way diminished because the soldier-turned-martyr may not have had explicit knowledge of the one true Church of Christ, let alone explicit knowledge of the divine precepts to enter therein through the Sacrament of baptism?

And yet, Br. Andre Marie is on record as saying: “I believe that such an act [the desire for Baptism … a “commanded act” of Charity] can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God.” (Even the St. Benedict Center can “develop” in its understanding.)

It would seem to follow that if an implicit desire for baptism can be an included in any supernatural act of the Love of God, then an implicit desire to enter the Church can also be included in that same act of supernatural charity. And if this orienting “desire” is to be efficacious in uniting one to the Mystical Body (“to the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ” Mystici Corporis), then an act of supernatural faith must also be included therein, precisely as the Holy Office instructs (“Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith.”)

So when you say “‘Implicit’ faith and/or desire is the abomination that grounds the Holy Office letter, caused Fr. Feeney's censure, and brought the wrath of God on the Church”, this to me is pure hyperbole, and why even bring up “implicit faith”, for nowhere does the Holy Office Letter suggest that Fr. Feeney was censured in part for rejecting the idea of an “implicit faith"; in fact the Letter never even mentions “implicit faith”. As Fr. Fenton notes:

It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation.

No, Fr. Feeney was censured specifically for rejecting the Church's teaching that says that in certain cases an implicit desire to enter the Church may be efficacious when it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity. Fr. Feeney would ultimately reject even an explicit desire to enter the Church when he rejected the baptisms of blood and desire.

tornpage wrote:My point in the op . . . I agree with you as to the possibility of incorporation into the Church with supernatural faith (explicit in Christ, i.e. the Trinity, and most likely His incarnation and Passion as well), but the possibility of it being otherwise is perhaps open: if the "ordinary" albeit authentic magisterium of the pope can err, there is the possibility of error regarding incorporation into the Church w/o water baptism.

Meaning, the three Feeneyites-on-steroids non-Latinist Catholics (and none from the St. Benedict Center) who actually declared on their own authority that the entire Church, as well as all of the saints, doctors and theologians, and professional medieval Latinists, are wrong when they unanimously hold that “the desire thereof” in Session 6, Ch. 4 means exactly what is has always meant, that the translation to justification can only be effected with the laver of regeneration, or its desire.

Please tell me you are not going to go down that road to nowhere.

Tornpage, if you want to pursue the following argument, be my guest:

Well, since the authentic magisterium is fallible, as is clearly evident when pope Francis appears to go it alone by introducing novelty and even heterodoxy (reads like heresy to me) into an authentic (fallible) expression of his magisterium (i.e., Amoris Laetitia, Chap. eight) then so too are all authentic expressions of the magisterium fallible, even those expressions such as the baptism of blood that has been taught unanimously since the earliest days of the Church and finds authentic expression in the Church’s liturgy, canon law, papal letters, a papal allocution, Roman Catechisms, local catechisms across the ages, and is confirmed by saints, doctors and theologians in every age, and is taught in all of the approved Theology manuals and Schools.

Yes, that quite the syllogism.

tornpage wrote:I agree with you that Trent, particularly if you compare what it said about a perfect contrition with regard to penance, seems very strongly to say that a desire short of receipt of baptism may be sufficient, and the Roman Catechism sure reads it that way - a strong support for sure. But . . .

But?

tornpage wrote:I for one cannot dismiss totally the rigorist Feeneyite view in light of, ah, even more recent developments.

That (chap. 8, AL) isn't a “development”, its an aberration. But if you mean the recent clarification among some theologians who posit that the "authentic" magisterium (which is often confused with the ordinary/infallible magisterium) is not necessarily infallible, I don't think this was so much a development as it was a clarification of terms.

tornpage wrote:As Father Jurgens said - quoted by the Dimonds with great relish - the tradition among the Fathers of the necessity of water baptism is so strong as to practically amount to "revelation." This gives me pause in light of the now apparent truth that "authenthic" Magisterial pronouncements can be erroneous, and the "or" of the desire in Trent could mean, following "without," - possibly, mark you - that you can't have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich w/o peanut butter or jelly, or specifically here that you can't have the translation to justice w/o sacramantal baptism and the desire for the same.

That particular citation from Fr. Jurgens has been a favorite among Feeneyites for quite some time; for example, Brian Kelly used it to great effect in his Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of Saint Augustine, where he says:

Testimony of Three Theologians

Before supplying Saint Augustine’s [so-called] retractions I will quote three modern theologians to demonstrate the lack of unanimity among the fathers who raised the question directly or indirectly concerning baptism of desire: Fathers William A. Jurgens, Bernard Otten, S.J., and Karl Rahner, S.J.

Father Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15, footnote 31, my [Kelly’s] italics)

Yes, very powerful. The only problem being that the passage was taken completely out of context. I happen to have all three volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers, and to get the full import of what Jurgens is actually saying we would do well to read the first paragraph of footnote 31 in its entirety:

The state of infants who die without baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of “Unless a man be born again et reliqua” is to be taken seriously, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Do you see what Brian Kelly did there? By omitting the text just previous to and just after his citation, he changed its meaning completely.

Come now, Tornpage, you’ll have to do better than that!

tornpage wrote:Mind you, I said I cannot dismiss that possibility, and hold the rigorist Feeneyite view as unquestionably false.

...I think recent events show us lay Catholics who deferred (or shown too much deference) to magisterial statements allowing for "implicit" faith or desire to have sat on our hands unneccessarily.

For example, you certainly allow the possibility of error in the Holy Office letter now, yes?

In its expressions of doctrines on matters of faith, I’ve always allowed for the possibility of error in the Holy Office Letter, but I do not believe there is any error (even if I lament the fact that the Letter failed to address the real heterodox sentimental theology identified by Fr. Feeney, and unjustly chastised Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not being docile “to the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities” who were teaching the same).

In fact, the Holy Office Letter clarifies or expounds upon difficult theological propositions that help explain the salvation dogmas as the Church understands them, such as:

The Church recognizes the critical theological distinction between that which is intrinsic to salvation (sanctifying grace, the theological virtues) as necessities of means, and that which is extrinsic to salvation as necessities of means, such as the institutional Church and the sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Eucharist. The essential fruits of these latter “absolute” extrinsic necessities may be supplied in times of necessity by other instrumental means (while also recognizing the conditional necessities of Penance and Eucharist).

We may say, for example that Baptism has been, is and always will be absolutely necessary for all men and for all times, meaning no ever has been, can be or will be saved without baptismal regeneration - meaning Baptism (regeneration, to be born again) is intrinsic to man’s salvation. That being the case, the sacrament of Baptism itself is necessary as a necessity of means, but extrinsically, not intrinsically, since its essential fruits of sanctifying grace and spiritual translation has been and may be applied “by the desire thereof” in times of necessity.

To say, as some Feeneyites insist, that since the promulgation of the Gospel the sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means, would mean that the sacrament of baptism, not just its essential fruits, has forever been, is and will always be absolutely necessary for salvation to all men and for all times, or “intrinsic” has no meaning.

Do you agree?

tornpage Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 pm

Mike,

Ok, let's get into this rather deep discussion regarding necessities of means.

MRyan wrote:In fact, the Holy Office Letter clarifies or expounds upon difficult theological propositions that help explain the salvation dogmas as the Church understands them, such as:

The Church recognizes the critical theological distinction between that which is intrinsic to salvation (sanctifying grace, the theological virtues) as necessities of means, and that which is extrinsic to salvation as necessities of means, such as the institutional Church and the sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Eucharist. The essential fruits of these latter “absolute” extrinsic necessities may be supplied in times of necessity by other instrumental means (while also recognizing the conditional necessities of Penance and Eucharist).

We may say, for example that Baptism has been, is and always will be absolutely necessary for all men and for all times, meaning no ever has been, can be or will be saved without baptismal regeneration - meaning Baptism (regeneration, to be born again) is intrinsic to man’s salvation. That being the case, the sacrament of Baptism itself is necessary as a necessity of means, but extrinsically, not intrinsically, since its essential fruits of sanctifying grace and spiritual translation has been and may be applied “by the desire thereof” in times of necessity.

Well, you know me, and this is not entirely satisfactory. Very Happy

And it seems to me we are going to get into another row like the one we had over Marin-Sola's (https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t914-god-s-permission-of-sin-negative-or-conditioned-decree) rather lame contention that, since God wills salvation for all men, "if anyone remains without obtaining it, that is not by fault of God, but by his own fault," thus parking his spinning wheels in a spot empty of the Limbo of the infants, that apparently archaic construct of many of the benighted elders of our faith - also taught authoritatively by the Magisterium - who lacked sufficient "hope."

But back to this "intrinsic" v. "extrinsic" necessity of means promoted by the Holy Office Letter. Here's a discussion of it that provides a ground of departure and puts it into a better frame (exposing some of the obvious problems):

NECESSITY OF MEANS

Something is said to be necessary with the necessity of means when it fulfills the function of means to an end; hence it is intrinsically related to the nature of the subject necessitating it. This necessity belongs to the ontological order.

Necessity of means can be absolute or relative. It is absolute when it excludes the possibility of being supplied by something else; e.g., sanctifying grace is necessary for the beatific vision by absolute necessity of means. Absolute necessity of means is also called metaphysical necessity.

Necessity of means is relative when it does not exclude the possibility of being supplied by something else. Thus Baptism of water is necessary for salvation by a relative necessity of means; in fact, under certain conditions, Baptism of desire (in voto ) can remit original sin. Similarly the Church is necessary for salvation by absolute necessity of means, but membership in the Church is necessary only by relative necessity of means, because, if one is invincibly ignorant of the Church and at the same time, through the Church's invisible mediation, one possesses faith and sanctifying grace, one can be saved without being a formal member. Relative necessity of means is also called physical necessity.

In more theological language, absolute necessity of means demands the presence of a thing that is the means in its full reality (in re ), whereas relative necessity can be satisfied by the desire for it or votum (in voto).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/necessity-means

Oh, the old (or new) "through the Church's invisible mediation" trick. Yes, let's simply say something is "extrinsically" necessary because we want to say it is necessary to something but it's relation to that something is "invisible." Look, no hands. And how about no relation, either? If there is, prove it.

It has not been proved, only asserted. Like Marin Sola's assertion that no one is deprived of the beatific vision without personal fault - rather than the truth which the Church did teach, that no one is "damned" to the hell of torment without personal fault. Marin Sola's theory can only be true if infants who die without baptism are in heaven, which the Church has never taught. The possibility (to put it mildly - again, the Church having asserted the contrary in the past) being that they are not, the logical support for Marin Sola's theory is somewhat "invisible".

Getting back to the quote, the Church is necessary by an absolute necessity of means, but membership in it is only "relatively" necessary. How is the Church "necessary" absolutely if the necessity of membership is only relative? Has the Church become an abstraction? I hear the Protestant "invisible" Church approaching. Oh, hey, there we go - an "invisible" Church with an "invisible mediation."

Do you see where this stuff is going?

An "extrinsic" necessity of means is of a kind with Marin Sola's theory of "no one is deprived of heaven without personal fault." It's sounds nice, warm and fuzzy, but it fails to account for the "facts" or at least possible facts. If one can be saved without entering or desiring to enter the Church - at least a desire for something requires that one is aware of the thing desired, thus making the thing desired "necessary" for the desire for it to exist (common sense) in a way the Church is not necessary to the desire of someone who has no idea of its existence - then there are people saved for whom the Church is simply not necessary.

A desire for something is necessary, and you simply call that something "the Church." This is not very cogent.

Of course, if the desire for baptism had to be explicit, then it too could be said to be necessary by a necessity of means, since the desire for it explicitly couldn't exist without it.

The Church as an "extrinsic" necessity thus smacks of an "implicit" desire for baptism. Baptism becomes necessary by way of an "invisible mediation," just like the Church is. Why not therefore call baptism an "extrinsic necessity" as well? You might as well. The actual sacrament is not necessary, but just the "mediation" of the grace of the sacrament. Well, an "extrinsically" necessary Church is not necessary either, just the grace that the Church mediates.

How does the Church become "extrinsically" necessary while baptism is "intrinsically" necessary?

I see nothing in the Holy Office letter that adumbrates this so as to make the "extrinsic" necessity of the Church "visible" to reason. But I guess it doesn't have to when the mediation is "invisible," eh?

MRyan wrote:To say, as some Feeneyites insist, that since the promulgation of the Gospel the sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means, would mean that the sacrament of baptism, not just its essential fruits, has forever been, is and will always be absolutely necessary for salvation to all men and for all times, or “intrinsic” has no meaning.

Do you agree?

Personally, I've not seen a Feeneyite resort to the incomprehensible "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" distinction. Feeneyites have too much common sense for that I think.

If you show me a Feeneyite saying "since the promulgation of the Gospel the sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means," I could perhaps agree or disagree.

What would he be meaning by "intrinsic"?

Since the use of "intrinsic" in these discussions takes its full force only in comparison to "extrinsic" necessity - which, as I said, remains incomprehensible to me - I think the concept useless.

There is only necessity by "means" and "precept."

The Church has said both baptism and She is necessary for salvation. For me, that means a necessity that requires a desire, to be sufficient, to be explicit - for reasons I expressed above.

Getting back to the original topic: perhaps Pope Francis and his magisterium will be the logical development (in a pan-religious "church") and extension of a teaching "authority" (the Catholic Church) whose "necessity" as taught "authoritatively" by its prelates and theologians was not in fact necessary, and you might say its mediation (which was thought "extrinsically" necessary by an "invisible mediation") will become manifestly and visibly unnecessary.

MRyan Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:39 am

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Personally, I've not seen a Feeneyite resort to the incomprehensible "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" distinction. Feeneyites have too much common sense for that I think.

Feeneyites would appear to have too much common sense to recognize with St. Thomas Aquinas (and all of tradition) the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction inherent within Session 6, Ch. 4 which clearly recognizes the intrinsic nature/necessity of baptismal regeneration (justification) and the extrinsic nature/necessity of the sacrament of Baptism as its instrumental cause. The justifying salvific effects are the same (the end for which they serve), only the instrumental modes of transmitting the essential grace and effects of the Sacrament may differ.

How much common sense is there in proposing that one may indeed be justified (sanctified) by the “desire thereof” through the bonds of faith and charity, but that this particular state of sanctifying grace is actually defective and non-salvific for those who are prevented from receiving the sacrament of Baptism by some necessity?

Imagine that, a defective species of sanctifying grace that neither truly sanctifies (makes one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom) nor saves.

In other words, where is the common sense in proposing that Trent, Session 6, Ch 4 does in fact dogmatically affirm the possibility of justification by “the desire thereof”, but then renders this same state of justification meaningless by denying its essential effects - the translation of souls into adopted sons and true heirs to the kingdom?

A handful of rebellious Feeneyites actually employ some common sense by realizing that a defective form of sanctifying grace that neither truly justifies nor saves might be a bridge too far, so, in order to retain their Feeneyite bona fides, they end up taking the only "logical" route (though itself lacking in common sense) that denies that an extra-sacramental state of grace by “the desire thereof’ is possible to begin with. In other words, without actual sacramental ablution there can be no state of grace - interior regeneration - period, and "desire" be damned.

Of course, the only way to come to such a conclusion is to drop all pretense of common sense by 1) denying all of tradition, 2) applying a private interpretation to John 3:5 (though for some reason they render our Lord’s not so subtle words in John 6:53 which say “Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” as representing only a “relative necessity”), and 3) finding some non-professional Latinists (rank amateurs) who are only too happy to translate Sess, 6. Ch 4 such that “or” actually means “and”; and never mind the popes, Doctors, saints and theologians, to include professional medieval Latinists, all of whom are in universal unanimity in teaching the correct translation that recognizes that “aut” actually means “aut”.

A supernatural love of God is intrinsic to salvation, while, as Br. Andre Marie affirms, an explicit commanded act of charity may be extrinsic to the same act in that it may also be implicit in one’s desire for baptism (a commanded act of charity).

Common sense, really.

MRyan Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:34 pm

tornpage wrote:Since the use of "intrinsic" in these discussions takes its full force only in comparison to "extrinsic" necessity - which, as I said, remains incomprehensible to me - I think the concept useless.

There is only necessity by "means" and "precept."

It is necessary as a necessity of means that one must be “joined to” the Catholic Church before death.

I think it safe to say that we both agree (it is a dogma, after all). It is far from “useless”, however, to recognize the vital distinction between the intrinsic necessity of being joined to the Catholic Church (in reality, or at least in desire), and the extrinsic necessity of being visibly joined to the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.

Do you now reject the Church’s teaching on the means of salvation open to the blood martyr who, through no fault of his own, is denied the opportunity for water Baptism? Do you deny that such a martyr can be joined to Christ (and to His Church) through the bonds of Faith and Charity?

What’s more, why did St. Thomas Aquinas consider the Baptism of Blood a more efficacious form of the One Baptism than that of Water if the former is “useless” as a concept and the latter absolute as a necessity of means?

Oh, that’s right, St. Thomas Aquinas was lacking in the “common sense” department, yes?

tornpage Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:12 am

Mike,

MRyan wrote:It is necessary as a necessity of means that one must be “joined to” the Catholic Church before death.

I know, that's what they (and you) say. Over and over.

The problem is it has no correspondence to reality, and truth is based on such a correspondence. Saying something, even if you say it over and over and over with great conviction, doesn't provide the correspondence if it simply isn't there.

It is "necessary" to be joined to the Church, except the Church is not necessary to the joining.

Think about that.

Substitute any other word for Church and think about that. A canoe. A life preserver. God Himself.

Could you be joined to a canoe or a life preserver without the canoe or life preserver? Could you be joined to God without God? No. The necessary object is in fact necessary for the joining.

But here, in this grand exception of an "extrinsic" necessity, you can be joined to the Catholic Church without the Catholic Church being in any way necessary to you for the joining. You don't touch it. You don't grab it and climb in it. You don't tie it around you. You don't look upward and beseech it to forgive you and grant you eternal life.

You grab something else and some theologians and "thinkers" simply declare that it constitutes joining (or grabbing to) the Catholic Church.

There is simply no correspondence to reality.

But if that were necessary to all human convictions the world wouldn't be the messy place it is, would it?

I don't say you can't do it, Mike, but if you can, you have to do better than what you've done in this thread to show the correspondence to reality of an "extrinsic" necessity.

tornpage Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:27 am

MRyan wrote:Feeneyites would appear to have too much common sense to recognize with St. Thomas Aquinas (and all of tradition) the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction inherent within Session 6, Ch. 4 which clearly recognizes the intrinsic nature/necessity of baptismal regeneration (justification) and the extrinsic nature/necessity of the sacrament of Baptism as its instrumental cause. The justifying salvific effects are the same (the end for which they serve), only the instrumental modes of transmitting the essential grace and effects of the Sacrament may differ.

The "instrumental mode" of water baptism is not necessary where water baptism is not necessary, and the "instrumental mode" of the Catholic Church is not necessary when nothing the Catholic Church provides and She alone provides - not her sacraments, not her Creed - is necessary for salvation.

This non-necessary "instrumental mode" you simply make into an "extrinsic" necessity when it's not necessary because, well, you need it to be necessary or else the Catholic faith is not founded on rock but a sink hole.

You know darn well that the "common sense" I was referring to involved the word "necessary," which your "extrinsic" necessities of means are not, though you pretend they are.

MRyan Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:32 pm

deleted

MRyan Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:34 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

MRyan wrote:It is necessary as a necessity of means that one must be “joined to” the Catholic Church before death.

I know, that's what they (and you) say. Over and over. The problem is it has no correspondence to reality, and truth is based on such a correspondence. Saying something, even if you say it over and over and over with great conviction, doesn't provide the correspondence if it simply isn't there.

It is "necessary" to be joined to the Church, except the Church is not necessary to the joining.

Think about that.

I have thought about it, and reject it outright for what it is, a reductio ad absurdum that reduces extrinsic necessity of means to “It is ‘necessary’ to be joined to the Church, except the Church is not necessary to the joining”.

This is both absurd and obviously false. In the case of the blood martyr who gives his life for Christ without benefit of sacramental ablution, his incorporation into Christ and His Church through the bonds of supernatural faith and charity is more efficaciously “real” (for the obtainment of the end for which Baptism and the Church were instituted) than a baptized adult who is joined to the Church, but not necessarily to Christ.

In both cases “the Church is necessary to the joining”, though not necessarily in the visible “member” sense.

You have yet to address the very real example (recognized, e.g., in the Church’s Liturgy) of the aforementioned “blood martyr who gives his life for Christ without benefit of sacramental ablution”, and I will keep beating you over the head with it until you address it.

So let me ask you again, do you now reject the Church’s teaching on the means of salvation open to the blood martyr who, through no fault of his own, is denied the opportunity for water Baptism? Do you deny that such a martyr can be joined to Christ (and to His Church) through the bonds of Faith and Charity?

Since you appear to believe that simple necessity of end in the context of Water Baptism positively precludes its essential sacramental effect from being transmitted through the bonds of supernatural faith and charity (meaning that the sacrament of baptism itself, and not its essential grace/effect, is a simple and absolute necessity of means such that the First Cause is dependent upon the effect for its efficacy. More on this in a minute).

But, in point of fact, every single Feeneyite of note who is associated with the St. Benedict Center recognizes what every single saint, Doctor, pope and theologian who has ever weighed in on this topic has always recognized, that the extra-sacramental baptism of blood translates the blood martyr into a state of sanctifying grace, a state of justifying union with Christ. And no one can be united to Christ without being united to His One Body - the Church. That some Feeneyites have attempted to destroy this same doctrine by rendering extra-sacramental justification as a defective species of sanctifying grace, or something less than “true”, is irrelevant, for this form of Feeneyite revisionism can do nothing to lessen the reality - the objective truth - of what has been known always, everywhere and by all men.

In condemning and censuring certain propositions “as erroneous in the faith”, the Council of Florence at Basel also recognized this same truth when it declared:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

And it was the same Council of Florence (at Basel) that also “especially condemns and censures

… the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: …To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed.”

It would appear that you have a real problem with recognizing the ontological distinction between that which is intrinsically necessary to salvation as a necessity of means, such as sanctifying (baptismal) grace (the grace of regeneration), incorporation into Christ and supernatural faith and charity; and that which is extrinsically necessary as a necessity of means, such as the divinely instituted ordinary instruments of sanctification that assist us in reaching the same end - salvation, by which we mean the Sacraments and the institutional Church, without which no one can be saved (recognizing the varying degrees of necessity), in reality, or at least in desire.

It is the internal invisible unity with Christ and His Church that you would appear to have a real problem with, for it is not something “real” that you can see or touch. Hence, you say:

tornpage wrote:Substitute any other word for Church and think about that. A canoe. A life preserver. God Himself.

Could you be joined to a canoe or a life preserver without the canoe or life preserver? Could you be joined to God without God? No. The necessary object is in fact necessary for the joining.

Yes, it is, and no one can be joined to the Church without the Church. The idea is absurd, but so too is your reductionist definition of necessity that fails to recognize that one may in fact be internally joined to the Church through the bonds of faith and charity which includes the desire for visible/external incorporation.

In trying to point out the alleged absurdity of being invisibly and extra-sacramentally joined to Christ and His Church (but not without the grace of the sacrament) through the supernatural bonds of faith and charity (manifested in the ardent faith and charity of the blood martyr), are you seriously equating being joined to God Himself with being joined to a canoe or a life preserver, as if the object or end of being joined to God, salvation, can be compared to the object of being joined to a canoe, which is a means to an end, not the end itself, unless of course you believe, as you appear to, that the Church, like a canoe, is an end unto itself and is thus equivalent to the object or end for which it was instituted?

Thus, under the Tornpage definition of necessity the First Cause of our salvation (Christ’s Passion and the Holy Ghost) is not greater than, but is dependent upon the divinely instituted instrument to effect the same end, and thus the First Cause of our salvation cannot derive the efficacy of Water Baptism (being conformed to Christ) from the bonds of supernatural faith and charity which necessarily includes a desire for the Sacrament and a desire to enter the Church. For that’s what “necessity of means”, means. So says you.

Your “problem” is simply a manifestation of your deeper theological conundrum that fails to recognize the Church, for example, as a divine institution (the institution is temporary, the Mystical Body is eternal) instituted in this vale of tears as a necessary means to an end; rather, you view the Church as end in itself, for why else would you say:

tornpage wrote:The …"instrumental mode" of the Catholic Church is not necessary when nothing the Catholic Church provides and She alone provides - not her sacraments, not her Creed - is necessary for salvation.”

And yet, contrary to your logical fallacy, that which is necessary for salvation is in fact provided by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone. But the First Cause (Christ’s Passion and the Holy Ghost) of the necessary sacramental salvific effect of Water Baptism (conformity in grace to Christ) is greater than and is thus not dependent upon the sacramental effect, which may, as a result, be received “from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him” (STL III, III, q. 66, a.11).

But you say no, Aquinas is wrong, for the First Cause of our Redemption is in not greater than, and is in fact dependent upon the sacramental effect provided by the Church, thus prohibiting anyone from deriving the efficacy of Water Baptism by being conformed to Christ by suffering for Him.

That Water Baptism is the instrumental cause of Justification does not mean that it is the only instrument for conveying its essential effect, for the Final Cause, the Efficient Cause, the Meritorious Cause and the alone Formal Cause of our Justification (the First Cause of our Redemption) is greater than the effect, and thus is not dependent upon the instrumental means of conveyance to effect the same end.

You have a real problem with the objective reality and truth that recognizes that the essential sacramental effect, the grace of regeneration, may be transmitted extra-sacramentally.

tornpage wrote:This non-necessary "instrumental mode" you simply make into an "extrinsic" necessity when it's not necessary because, well, you need it to be necessary or else the Catholic faith is not founded on rock but a sink hole.

Now there’s a ridiculous statement. That you can conflate “extrinsic necessity” with “non-necessity” only demonstrates the paucity of your shallow understanding. You sound exactly like the Feeneyites who say anyone who believes in the Baptisms of Blood and Desire wrests John 3:5 into some sort of metaphor for Water Baptism by suggesting “that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism”, and thus incurs the anathema of Tent (Sess. 7, On Baptism, Canon II).

The logic is perfectly flawless in its own perfectly flawed way, and perfectly circular. And until one recognizes the error in logic, the argument will continue to be repeated with no escape from its perfectly circular reasoning.

tornpage wrote:You know darn well that the "common sense" I was referring to involved the word "necessary," which your "extrinsic" necessities of means are not, though you pretend they are.

Yes, and that is exactly the context in which I said the following:

What’s more, why did St. Thomas Aquinas consider the Baptism of Blood a more efficacious form of the One Baptism than that of Water if the former is “useless” as a concept and the latter absolute as a necessity of means?

Oh, that’s right, St. Thomas Aquinas was lacking in the “common sense” department, yes?

Perhaps you should re-read the applicable sections of the Summa where St. Thomas discusses “absolute necessity”, “necessity of end”, the “unity of the three Baptisms”.

tornpage wrote:But here, in this grand exception of an "extrinsic" necessity, you can be joined to the Catholic Church without the Catholic Church being in any way necessary to you for the joining. You don't touch it. You don't grab it and climb in it. You don't tie it around you. You don't look upward and beseech it to forgive you and grant you eternal life.

I have to think you know this is false, yet you repeat it as if it were true. When you beseech the Church to grant sacramental absolution, do you now say that when a priest is not available, and even if one has the intention to confess, a perfect charity/contrition is either impossible or cannot restore one to a state of grace; after all, "You don't touch it. You don't grab it and climb in" the Church, but can only appeal to its institutional mercy by a desire for it. And, provided the proper intention and a perfect charity/contrition are present, the Church, the instrument of salvation, will provide the same grace of absolution in the times of necessity, and you know this is true.

"Hence", as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "the Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised."

And what doe the same Council teach with respect to the necessity of the sacrament of Penance? Session 6, Ch. 14, On the fallen, and their restoration:

Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, and to be made in its season,and sacerdotal absolution.

There is no “grand exception” to the necessity of being joined to the Church, it applies to all men and at all times, no one is exempt from the divine precept. What one “grabs” onto is faith and charity, all else will fall into place when the required dispositions are present (without faith and charity these dispositions are impossible, or at best insincere). The Church has always recognized that one may be joined to Christ, and by necessary extension, the Church (in grace) through the supernatural bonds of faith and charity before and even without sacramental ablution, but never without the essential grace of the same Sacrament, applied in re or in voto.

So let me ask you again, do you now reject the Church’s teaching on the means of salvation open to the blood martyr who, through no fault of his own, is denied the opportunity for water Baptism? Do you deny that such a martyr can be joined to Christ (and to His Church) through the bonds of Faith and Charity?

tornpage Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:46 pm

MRyan wrote:So let me ask you again, do you now reject the Church’s teaching on the means of salvation open to the blood martyr who, through no fault of his own, is denied the opportunity for water Baptism? Do you deny that such a martyr can be joined to Christ (and to His Church) through the bonds of Faith and Charity?

No, I do not.

I simply do not hold that there is an implicit desire to join the Church such that the existence of the Church is in no way necessary for the desire.

You are a Thomist, yes? You also agree with St. Thomas that a man who "does what he can" and seeks God will be granted a revelation by supernatural means if necessary of things which are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, such as the Trinity and Incarnation, yes?

If you believe these things, as I think you do, then why do you believe them?

This is not an evasion. It will bring us closer to the heart of the matter.

tornpage Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:53 pm

MRyan wrote:When you beseech the Church to grant sacramental absolution, do you now say that when a priest is not available, and even if one has the intention to confess, a perfect charity/contrition is either impossible or cannot restore one to a state of grace; after all, "You don't touch it. You don't grab it and climb in" the Church, but can only appeal to its institutional mercy by a desire for it. And, provided the proper intention and a perfect charity/contrition are present, the Church, the instrument of salvation, will provide the same grace of absolution in the times of necessity, and you know this is true.

Incredibly poor example.

If I am "beseeching" the Church the Church is something that moves me or affects me and is instrumental to the saving desire, i.e. necessary to the desire.

You keep wanting to go back to a debate on "desire" when the debate is about necessity.

The debate is about "necessity," not desire.

Ok?

MRyan Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:20 am

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:So let me ask you again, do you now reject the Church’s teaching on the means of salvation open to the blood martyr who, through no fault of his own, is denied the opportunity for water Baptism? Do you deny that such a martyr can be joined to Christ (and to His Church) through the bonds of Faith and Charity?

No, I do not.

That being the case, to be consistent you must also hold that the necessity of Water Baptism is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means, otherwise, if Water Baptism is necessary by an intrinsic necessity, one’s desire, whether explicit or implicit, can have no effect on the object of one’s desire without actual sacramental ablution.

Thank you for acknowledging the truth and distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities. We’re done (with that part, anyway), for your subsequent argument that recognizes the efficacy of an explicit desire (formed by Faith and animated by Charity), while rejecting the efficacy of an implicit desire formed and animated by the same theological virtues, is quite irrelevant.

By your own acknowledgement, all of your previous arguments against an extrinsic necessity of means just fell by the way side. “What you've done in this thread [is] to show the correspondence to reality of an ‘extrinsic’ necessity.” You challenged me to do so, but you just did it for me by agreeing with me. Thank you.

One cannot have a “debate … about ‘necessity,’” without recognizing how the sacrament of Baptism, for example, may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire.

So, no, I do not accept that “The debate is about ‘necessity,’ not desire.”

One cannot recognize the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, as you just did, without recognizing how “desire” (formed by faith and animated by charity) relates to (and is essential to) an extrinsic necessity of means.

tornpage wrote:I simply do not hold that there is an implicit desire to join the Church such that the existence of the Church is in no way necessary for the desire.

Well, I don’t hold that either, for the existence of the Church is in fact necessary if an implicit desire to be joined to her is going to be efficacious. If a neophyte does not have an explicit faith in Purgatory, but an implicit faith, this does not change the reality or necessity of Purgatory as it relates to the neophyte’s implicit faith in the same. As St. Thomas taught (I am taking the liberty of replacing “Mediator” with “Purgagtory”):

If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation [about Purgagtory], they were not saved without faith in [Purgatory], for, though they did not believe in [Purgatory] explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him, and according to the revelation of the Spirit to those who knew the truth, as stated in Job 35:11: "Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth" (STL II-II, q. 2, a. 7, ad 3).

An implicit desire is included in and is formed by one’s explicit faith, and is animated by perfect charity . When one professes his Faith, one professes belief in everything the Church teaches, that God has revealed, whether it known explicitly (the essential articles) or only implicitly (all the rest, to include belief in the Catholic Church when knowledge of her or of the necessity to enter therein haven’t been revealed).

I’m surprised that you cannot see the fatal error in your logic. The existence of the Church is necessary even for an implicit desire by the simple fact that she remains the divine instrument of salvation whether a sanctified soul is aware of her existence, structure and necessity, or not. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught,

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; … So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues (STh III, q. 69, a. 4).

Seems pretty clear to me.

tornpage wrote:You are a Thomist, yes? You also agree with St. Thomas that a man who "does what he can" and seeks God will be granted a revelation by supernatural means if necessary of things which are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, such as the Trinity and Incarnation, yes?

If you believe these things, as I think you do, then why do you believe them?

As a “Thomist”, yes, I agree with him and believe these things. Why? Because of the rigor of his logic and the weight of tradition. But this is also why I believe in his teachings on implicit faith and impact desire.

tornpage wrote:This is not an evasion. It will bring us closer to the heart of the matter.

If not an evasion, than an unnecessary distraction. It is clear that St. Thomas believed in an “implicit desire”, as well as an “implicit faith” (in the secondary articles of faith), which means he clearly understood, and taught, the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic necessities of means.

MRyan Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:44 am

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:When you beseech the Church to grant sacramental absolution, do you now say that when a priest is not available, and even if one has the intention to confess, a perfect charity/contrition is either impossible or cannot restore one to a state of grace; after all, "You don't touch it. You don't grab it and climb in" the Church, but can only appeal to its institutional mercy by a desire for it. And, provided the proper intention and a perfect charity/contrition are present, the Church, the instrument of salvation, will provide the same grace of absolution in the times of necessity, and you know this is true.

Incredibly poor example.

If I am "beseeching" the Church the Church is something that moves me or affects me and is instrumental to the saving desire, i.e. necessary to the desire.

You keep wanting to go back to a debate on "desire" when the debate is about necessity.

The debate is about "necessity," not desire.

Ok?

As I said, no, it is not OK. And my example is perfectly reasonable and exactly on point. The sacrament of Penance, for those who have fallen after Baptism, is, like Baptism, simply and absolutely necessary for salvation, but as an extrinsic necessity of means since the grace of the sacrament (absolution and restoration to grace) may be realized by a desire for it (to include perfect charity/contrition) when one is prevented by some necessity from confessing to a priest.

That you now attempt to divert the argument from your “implicit” acceptance of the baptism of blood being a specific example of extrinsic necessity of means (water Baptism) by your rejection of an implicit desire, is irrelevant to the main thrust of this entire debate, and that is whether there is in fact a theological distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities as necessities of means.

So no, I am not the one moving the goal posts because I “keep wanting to go back to a debate on ‘desire’ when the debate is about necessity”; the debate IS about necessity, and how “desire” is integral to its proper understanding.

tornpage Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:06 pm

MRyan wrote:That being the case, to be consistent you must also hold that the necessity of Water Baptism is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means, otherwise, if Water Baptism is necessary by an intrinsic necessity, one’s desire, whether explicit or implicit, can have no effect on the object of one’s desire without actual sacramental ablution.

Thank you for acknowledging the truth and distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities. We’re done (with that part, anyway), for your subsequent argument that recognizes the efficacy of an explicit desire (formed by Faith and animated by Charity), while rejecting the efficacy of an implicit desire formed and animated by the same theological virtues, is quite irrelevant.

By your own acknowledgement, all of your previous arguments against an extrinsic necessity of means just fell by the way side. “What you've done in this thread [is] to show the correspondence to reality of an ‘extrinsic’ necessity.” You challenged me to do so, but you just did it for me by agreeing with me. Thank you.

No, I have not made your point and agreed with you. I have said nothing that proves the existence of an "extrinsic necessity of means," which the CE below calls a "relative necessity," pulling its rabbit out of its hat.

Again, you simply pervert language to maintain your "necessities" of baptism and the Church. But you stand in your "tradition," and just follow the theologian think speak that preceded you.

Here's the CE on "necessity":

In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached.

A necessity of means is something that, without it, the end cannot be reached. The insertion of "or its substitute" is bogus, a bald attempt to preserve the necessity of, in the instances under discussion, water baptism or the Church in the light of a theology that makes them unnecessary in fact, though not in the lingo of the theologians, who want to have and eat their cake of necessity, and will make it out of thin air if there is no flour . . . and they have no flour.

If one holds that justification (and hence the possibility of salvation) can be had without water baptism, then water baptism is simply not a "necessity of means." You can call it a "relative necessity" of means (lol, "relatively" necessary . . . do they even bother considering the words they use? "Relative" is contrary to absolute, but in this weird theological kingdom you can have something relatively absolutely necessary) because you're haunted by the fathers and prior Church teaching about the "necessity" of water baptism and the Church itself.

Just look at the CE as it continues:

Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

A "necessity" based on "precept" is a necessity of precept, not means. Does that even need to be stated? Evidently, because there are no lines to navigate the dots in the CE theological fog.

Faith and baptismal grace are necessities of means to salvation. The Church is a necessity of means to salvation because it is the chosen instrument of salvation under the new covenant and the LORD does not save "outside" Her, with "outside" retaining its true meaning in Our Lord's revelation, just as "necessity" does.

That one can be inside the Church and receive the grace of baptism by "desire" is conceded by both of us. You, however, insist, with the CE and the other theological magicians, on your sleight of hand that makes something not "necessary" as a means to salvation, like water baptism or the Church (where one does not even have to be aware of the Catholic Church and not have union with Her as an object of desire), a bogus "relative" necessity of means, which you concede is something without which the end cannot be obtained - except it can be obtained when the necessity of means becomes "relative."

Show me a blood martyr who was not a catechumen and was not aware of the entity the Catholic Church and did not desire to be joined with Her? You can't. You posit that certain soldiers who died side by side Catholic martyrs could possibly not be aware of the religion or Church that those who died at their shoulders belonged to. Seriously? These soldiers were not aware of the Catholic Church?

That doesn't sound very credible, but hey, no matter - your argument in any event fails because at best you have an uncertainty, which proves nothing.

Again, the issue is "necessity," not "desire." Your "extrinsic" necessities are not in fact "necessary" as a necessity of means, because a "relative" necessity "based upon precept" (if you want to talk about conceding your opponent's position out of your own mouth - there you go) is not an absolute necessity whose absence prevents the end being achieved.

It is you who move the goalposts and ignore the issue at hand. I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can "count for the deed." I can do so, and indeed do, without your fiction of a "relative" or "extrinsic" necessity of means that is not a necessity of means.

We'll get to the implications of your Thomism later.

MRyan Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:26 am

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:That being the case, to be consistent you must also hold that the necessity of Water Baptism is necessary by an extrinsic necessity of means, otherwise, if Water Baptism is necessary by an intrinsic necessity, one’s desire, whether explicit or implicit, can have no effect on the object of one’s desire without actual sacramental ablution.

Thank you for acknowledging the truth and distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities. We’re done (with that part, anyway), for your subsequent argument that recognizes the efficacy of an explicit desire (formed by Faith and animated by Charity), while rejecting the efficacy of an implicit desire formed and animated by the same theological virtues, is quite irrelevant.

By your own acknowledgement, all of your previous arguments against an extrinsic necessity of means just fell by the way side. “What you've done in this thread [is] to show the correspondence to reality of an ‘extrinsic’ necessity.” You challenged me to do so, but you just did it for me by agreeing with me. Thank you.

No, I have not made your point and agreed with you. I have said nothing that proves the existence of an "extrinsic necessity of means," which the CE below calls a "relative necessity," pulling its rabbit out of its hat.

Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Can the desire for water baptism (a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity) count for the deed of sacramental ablution, or not?

I’ll wait for your reply before addressing the rest of your response.

MRyan Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:08 am

Actually, let’s do a little clean-up work without having to wait for your response to my post above. If you are going to cite the 1917 CE, you might try getting it right by reading the entire paragraph.

tornpage wrote:Just look at the CE as it continues:

Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

A "necessity" based on "precept" is a necessity of precept, not means. Does that even need to be stated? Evidently, because there are no lines to navigate the dots in the CE theological fog.

Unfortunately, you yanked the citation completely out of context, for “the second case” is in fact that of necessity of precept, and not that of the first case, necessity of means. This time read the paragraph from the beginning:

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case [necessity of means] the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case [necessity of precept], necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

Seriously, Tornpage, you’ll have to do better than that if you want me to take your bluster seriously.

tornpage Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:21 pm

MRyan wrote:Actually, let’s do a little clean-up work without having to wait for your response to my post above. If you are going to cite the 1917 CE, you might try getting it right by reading the entire paragraph.

tornpage wrote:Just look at the CE as it continues:

Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

A "necessity" based on "precept" is a necessity of precept, not means. Does that even need to be stated? Evidently, because there are no lines to navigate the dots in the CE theological fog.

Unfortunately, you yanked the citation completely out of context, for “the second case” is in fact that of necessity of precept, and not that of the first case, necessity of means. This time read the paragraph from the beginning:

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case [necessity of means] the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case [necessity of precept], necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.
Seriously, Tornpage, you’ll have to do better than that if you want me to take your bluster seriously.

Ok. I misread the quote. The CE didn't hoist itself on its own petard. But the absurdity of a "relative absolute" remains.

tornpage Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:42 pm

MRyan wrote:Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Again, no, I haven't.

An "extrinsic" necessity of means which is only relatively necessary is not, in fact, a necessity of means.

It becomes necessary only by precept and cognizance of the "necessity," which is not necessary without the precept and the consequent cognizance.

Water baptism is not necessary when a desire for water baptism is not necessary. The Catholic Church is not necessary when a desire to enter the Church is not necessary. The desire necessary can exist without water baptism or the Catholic Church - according to you, or at least the practical upshot of your position.

You cannot have something a "necessity of means" when it is not a necessary means to the end.

How is water baptism necessary for faith and perfect contrition, or the Church for that matter? Both of those things were possible before the existence of water baptism and the Church.

One thing can be a "necessity of means" under one dispensation and not another. And the Church says so - in Trent (as to the necessity of at least a desire for baptism "since the promulgation of the gospel") and in the Roman Catechism, for example, with mentions I believe the baptism becoming obligatory after the promulgation of the Gospel, with the "Tradition" that the desire is the same as the deed under certain circumstances.

The thing desired, i.e. baptism or entrance into the Church, is "necessary" because without those things you couldn't have a desire for them. Both the Church and/or baptism are the doors to salvation - you can enter through either door, since each leads to each.

That may not make sense to you, but it is God who determines what means are necessary and when.

You call those things "extrinsic" necessities while denying their necessity. Neither explicit desire to either enter the Church or receive baptism is necessary in your theology. Your "implicit desire," without an actual desire for one or the other, is a construct that enables you to retain the "necessity" of baptism and/or the Church, or the fiction of their necessity.

It's a salve for your tortured theology, and an avoidance of its consequences.

MRyan Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:42 pm

MRyan wrote:
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Can the desire for water baptism (a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity) count for the deed of sacramental ablution, or not?

I’ll wait for your reply before addressing the rest of your response.

Still waiting for a response.

tornpage Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:53 pm

MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Can the desire for water baptism (a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity) count for the deed of sacramental ablution, or not?

I’ll wait for your reply before addressing the rest of your response.

Still waiting for a response.

I would say yes, but wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

Euclid Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:37 pm

tornpage wrote:
You are a Thomist, yes? You also agree with St. Thomas that a man who "does what he can" and seeks God will be granted a revelation by supernatural means if necessary of things which are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, such as the Trinity and Incarnation, yes?

If you believe these things, as I think you do, then why do you believe them?

I'm new here. And frankly, I'm new to the faith. But to me, the answer to this is simple and patently obvious. You are arguing Dogma and semantics. What happened to "where two or more are gathered together in my name...???" Is not the ecclesiastical church tolerant of extenuating circumstances? Is the Church so rigid, that she cannot offer her grace to those who truly, purely seek her grace,, (even and only at the hour of desth) but truly have not the means of ability to partake of her sanctified graces? Are you unaware of the many members of the laity who live in a supposed state of grace, but whose habits or hearts are not truly united with Christ? In a perfect world, one dues not have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic. The question is, what does Jesus think? What will bring us to the kingdom of God, if our ability to partake in the sacraments are limited but our hearts are united with Christ,? Feel very free too criticise my point of view for my personal edification. But please, argue with facts versus sheer logic.

Euclid Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:41 pm

Forgive my typos. Using my phone.

tornpage Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:24 pm

Euclid wrote:tornpage wrote:
You are a Thomist, yes? You also agree with St. Thomas that a man who "does what he can" and seeks God will be granted a revelation by supernatural means if necessary of things which are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation, such as the Trinity and Incarnation, yes?

If you believe these things, as I think you do, then why do you believe them?

I'm new here. And frankly, I'm new to the faith. But to me, the answer to this is simple and patently obvious. You are arguing Dogma and semantics. What happened to "where two or more are gathered together in my name...???" Is not the ecclesiastical church tolerant of extenuating circumstances? Is the Church so rigid, that she cannot offer her grace to those who truly, purely seek her grace,, (even and only at the hour of desth) but truly have not the means of ability to partake of her sanctified graces? Are you unaware of the many members of the laity who live in a supposed state of grace, but whose habits or hearts are not truly united with Christ? In a perfect world, one dues not have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic. The question is, what does Jesus think? What will bring us to the kingdom of God, if our ability to partake in the sacraments are limited but our hearts are united with Christ,? Feel very free too criticise my point of view for my personal edification. But please, argue with facts versus sheer logic.

Hi. And welcome.

There's a lot of questions there. Want to pick one for me?

Gracias.

Euclid Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:23 am

In a perfect world, one dues not have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic. The question is, what does Jesus think? What will bring us to the kingdom of God, if our ability to partake in the sacraments are limited but our hearts are united with Christ,?

MRyan Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:09 pm

Euclid wrote:In a perfect world, one dues not have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic. The question is, what does Jesus think? What will bring us to the kingdom of God, if our ability to partake in the sacraments are limited but our hearts are united with Christ,?

Hi Euclid. If the question is “What does Jesus think”, I hope you would agree that what He thinks has been left to us in a body of teaching called the Deposit of Faith (Divine Revelation - Scripture and Tradition), with the one true Church having received the charge of faithfully protecting and infallibly promulgating.

So when the Council of Trent infallibly/dogmatically declares that one may be translated to a state of justification by the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof (understood to mean a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity), and the Catechism of this same Council provides a concrete example of this dogmatic truth by teaching “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 can trust that what Jesus thinks is reflected in these same teachings, teachings repeated over and over again by the Church, by her saints, doctors and theologians.

So, no, in a “perfect world”, there would be no reason for the ordinary layman to “have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic”; but when, for example, the doctrines of the baptisms of blood and desire are denied (for allegedly being in opposition to defined dogma), or when it is posited that Session 6, Ch. 4 of the Council of Trent in its reference to “the desire thereof” is presenting a defective species of sanctifying grace that can neither save nor make one a true son of God and heir to the Kingdom, then those with the capacity for doing so have every reason to defend the Church’s teaching by making the proper theological distinctions.

For all others, it is enough to say I believe what the Church teaches, to wit, that “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).

MRyan Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:20 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Can the desire for water baptism (a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity) count for the deed of sacramental ablution, or not?

I’ll wait for your reply before addressing the rest of your response.

Still waiting for a response.

I would say yes, but wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

You would say yes, but you would also say “A necessity of means is something that, without it, the end cannot be reached.”

So, you would say, the “substitute” of the baptism of desire both can and cannot count for the deed of sacramental ablution.

Which is it?

tornpage Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:40 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Speaking of pulling a rabbit out of the hat, when you say “I indeed agree with St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, that a desire for something can ‘count for the deed’", you have in fact conceded my point on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessities of means, with the salvation of the blood martyr being a concrete example of the latter.

Can the desire for water baptism (a desire informed by faith and animated by perfect charity) count for the deed of sacramental ablution, or not?

I’ll wait for your reply before addressing the rest of your response.

Still waiting for a response.

I would say yes, but wouldn't be dogmatic about it.
You would say yes, but you would also say “A necessity of means is something that, without it, the end cannot be reached.”

So, you would say, the “substitute” of the baptism of desire both can and cannot count for the deed of sacramental ablution.

Which is it?

When did I say water baptism was a necessity of means?

tornpage Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:57 pm

Euclid wrote:In a perfect world, one dues not have to expostulate upon the intrinsic vs extrinsic. The question is, what does Jesus think? What will bring us to the kingdom of God, if our ability to partake in the sacraments are limited but our hearts are united with Christ,?

For me this debate about "intrinsic v. extrinsic" is about credibility, and who to believe. A bunch of theologians use those distinctions, which I think bogus. To the extent that the theologians who use such terminology are thought of as speaking for the Church and expressing the Catholic truth, their nonsense rubs off on the truth of the true Church by association. The truth does not contradict itself, and a "relatively absolute necessity of means (an "extrinsic" necessity)" is an absurdity, and not truth.

This bothers me, as a Catholic and a believer that she possesses and stands for THE TRUTH.

It is also a topic not for everyone, just as a very technical discussion of baseball might not be valuable or of interest to all baseball fans. So . . . I understand if you think it a waste of time.

I would not come anywhere near speculating "what would Jesus think." Catholics don't have to resolve questions that way. MRyan gave a pretty good answer.

As to your other question: God brings us to Himself. Why would he do that outside the means he has instituted? That's a rhetorical question for thought, no need for you to answer.

But I will ask a question of you now: was the salvation of you, me or anyone else determined by God before we were born, and without anything we did being the cause of God's pre-determination?

MRyan Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:44 pm

tornpage wrote:
When did I say water baptism was a necessity of means?

I must say, I wasn’t expecting that. I actually had to walk away from this for a day, just to soak it all in. Do you even realize what you are saying? Have you thought about the implications?

Since, as you said before, “There is only necessity by ‘means’ and ‘precept’”, if water baptism is not necessary by a necessity of means, it must follow that it is necessary by a necessity of precept only.

tornpage wrote:For me this debate about "intrinsic v. extrinsic" is about credibility, and who to believe. A bunch of theologians use those distinctions, which I think bogus. To the extent that the theologians who use such terminology are thought of as speaking for the Church and expressing the Catholic truth, their nonsense rubs off on the truth of the true Church by association. The truth does not contradict itself, and a "relatively absolute necessity of means (an "extrinsic" necessity)" is an absurdity, and not truth.

This bothers me, as a Catholic and a believer that she possesses and stands for THE TRUTH.

So let’s unpack this, for I agree, this debate about "intrinsic v. extrinsic" is about credibility, and who to believe. Are we to believe a single theologian named Fr. Leonard Feeney who, in formulating his own definition of necessity of means (which is identical to yours), went against not only the greatest Doctors of the Church, names such as Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine and Liguori, but also against the entire body of theologians who, since at least the 16th century, spoke in unison about the two distinctions of necessity of means as it relates to salvation; names such as Suarez, Billot, Tanquerey, Franzelin, Ott, Pohle, Prümmer, etc.?

As Fr. Cekada said in his article Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles,

“it is absurd to claim that the Fathers of the Church and her theologians erred in setting forth and explaining the meaning of the doctrine of the faith. This opinion involves the Jansenist error that the faith has been ‘obscured’ in the Church.”

So who are we going to believe, the greatest Doctors and scholastic theologians of the Church, and received ecclesiastical tradition, or Fr. Feeney and his small band of loyal followers?

A couple of things stand out here. First, we know by now that you hold the “rigorist” and unique definition of the necessity of means held by Fr. Feeney. However, unlike Fr. Feeney, because you recognize the baptisms of blood and desire as authentic doctrines (but "not dogmatically"), you reject Fr. Feeney’s (and all the rest of the Doctor’s and theologian’s) position on water baptism as being necessary as a necessity of means (not to mention the Church's position as well), and hold in true Protestant fashion (though for different reasons) to the position that sees the necessity of water Baptism as a necessity of precept only, whereby, you say, if it were actually a necessity of means as understood with the aforementioned theological distinctions, it would make it “unnecessary in fact”.

This is very revealing (and tragic), for by rendering the sacrament of Baptism as a necessity of precept only, you are in fact saying that the Law of Baptism belongs to the moral order (and not the metaphysical order) whereby the quality or entity (water baptism) is NOT intrinsically related (as it is with necessity of end/means) “to the nature of the subject requiring it, but only extrinsically, i.e., by the free determination of another subject” (2003 CE).

In English, this means that the Law of Baptism, if it were a necessity of precept only (can you smell the sulfur?), and just like the positive precept to hear Mass on Sunday, “when the law cannot be fulfilled except with grave inconvenience, or if it is physically impossible to fulfill it, the law ceases to urge”, and is in fact dispensed with until such time the impediments are removed.

In other words, you have in effect elevated spiritual regeneration (a necessity of means) over water Baptism (a necessity of precept) and thereby permanently severed "to be born again" (in reality or in desire) from its metaphysical, ontological and intrinsic relationship with water Baptism (the sulfur smell is getting stronger!).

Here too we see in the 2003 CE article “extrinsically” is used as a qualifying distinction both with respect to necessity of means and of precept, but with two distinct meanings as each relates, or doesn’t relate, to the intrinsic nature of the subject requiring it, and to which it is intrinsically (necessity of means) or only extrinsically (necessity of precept) ordered.

This is why in voto serves as an extrinsic or “relative” necessity of means because it remains intrinsically related to the metaphysical and ontological end for which water baptism is ordered (necessity of end), and it is not, as in necessity of precept, only extrinsically related or ordered “to the nature of the subject requiring it … by the free determination of another subject”.

Just so we’re clear, you hold that the necessity of water baptism is a necessity of precept only, while also saying

The Church [unlike the sacrament of baptism] is a necessity of means to salvation because it is the chosen instrument of salvation under the new covenant and the LORD does not save "outside" Her, with "outside" retaining its true meaning in Our Lord's revelation, just as "necessity" does.

What? Since you have already conceded that one may be joined to the Church by an explicit desire, faith and charity, what is the “true meaning” of the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it relates to formal external membership? Is it, like water baptism, a necessity of precept only?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

MRyan Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:19 pm

tornpage wrote:
Show me a blood martyr who was not a catechumen and was not aware of the entity the Catholic Church and did not desire to be joined with Her? You can't. You posit that certain soldiers who died side by side Catholic martyrs could possibly not be aware of the religion or Church that those who died at their shoulders belonged to. Seriously? These soldiers were not aware of the Catholic Church?

That doesn't sound very credible, but hey, no matter - your argument in any event fails because at best you have an uncertainty, which proves nothing.

Actually, you are arguing from the wrong end of the stick. I don’t have to “prove” that a particular blood martyr or anyone else who is celebrated in the martyrology and/or in the Church’s liturgy as having been martyred without the sacrament of Baptism was not aware of the entity of the Church as a divine institution, I only have to “prove” that the doctrine itself exists, that such souls can be saved, and that this doctrine has been held by the Church from the earliest days of blood martyrdom.

Aquinas did not pull “explicit and implicit desire” out of his theological bags of tricks, he was explaining in theological terms what was already passed on as received doctrine/tradition.

Said another way:

Theologians held Baptism to be relatively necessary because they took baptism of desire as a given. None of them tried to prove salvation through baptism of desire by asserting that Baptism is relatively necessary for salvation. Such an argument would prove nothing, just as arguments attempting to prove Feeneyism by asserting that Baptism is absolutely necessary prove nothing. (https://veritatisstella.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/the-great-theologians-vs-feeneyism-two-different-understandings-of-the-necessitas-medii-and-necessitas-praecepti/)

MRyan Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:36 pm

tornpage wrote:But I will ask a question of you [Euclid] now: was the salvation of you, me or anyone else determined by God before we were born, and without anything we did being the cause of God's pre-determination?

Come on, Tornpage, give the new guy a break. He probably has no idea what awaits him and the theological quagmire and fog you are about to unleash, not to mention the theological distinctions that might get buried beneath the rubble.

But, hey, if he wants to bite, at least he's been forewarned.

tornpage Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:35 pm

MRyan wrote:
tornpage wrote:But I will ask a question of you [Euclid] now: was the salvation of you, me or anyone else determined by God before we were born, and without anything we did being the cause of God's pre-determination?
Come on, Tornpage, give the new guy a break. He probably has no idea what awaits him and the theological quagmire and fog you are about to unleash, not to mention the theological distinctions that might get buried beneath the rubble.

But, hey, if he wants to bite, at least he's been forewarned.

Not fog, clarity, and perhaps too much clarity - the blinding kind. Smile

tornpage Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:45 pm

MRyan wrote:Actually, you are arguing from the wrong end of the stick. I don’t have to “prove” that a particular blood martyr or anyone else who is celebrated in the martyrology and/or in the Church’s liturgy as having been martyred without the sacrament of Baptism was not aware of the entity of the Church as a divine institution, I only have to “prove” that the doctrine itself exists, that such souls can be saved, and that this doctrine has been held by the Church from the earliest days of blood martyrdom.

Wrong again - what an uncanny ability you have in that regard.

You have proven nothing. That Tradition supports baptism of blood is one thing.
That the same Tradition supports your notion that those who received baptism of blood were unaware of the Church as a divine institution is, in fact, unproven.

It is, rather, a dangerous and gratuitous assumption, totally unnecessary.

So . . . prove it.

tornpage Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:00 pm

Mike,

If one can be saved without water baptism then water baptism is not a necessity of means for salvation. This is just being intellectually honest.

This is why your "extrinisc" and "relative" necessity of means is a problem: for it is not necessary, and there are other means.

I don't smell sulfur . . . but there is a lot of smoke about.

tornpage Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:22 pm

Listen, Torquemada, this was a discussion of "extrinsic necessity" and a "relative necessity of means."

I don't make dogma, or build houses, but I can smell when something is rotten in Denmark (and it ain't sulphur).

We are talking about theologian speak. The only time I recall the Church using the phrase "necessity of means" in a document in Denzinger is when the Holy Office referred to the mysteries of faith, the Trinity and the Incarnation, and explicit belief in Christ as a "necessity of means." (Dz. 1349a, 1349b).

The Church has never called water baptism a "necessity of means" to my knowledge.

She has condemned the following, Canon 5 of the canons on Baptism, Session VII, Council of Trent:

"Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema."

She has also said, in Can.4 of the same Session, Canons on the Sacraments in General:

"Can.4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

What I believe is in accord with the above, Torquemada.

Yet tell me, you who knows that I believe in explicit desire with regard to baptism, as in the catechumen, and reject implicit desire, as capable of justifying, how does a justification by implicit desire retain the sacraments as necessary?

This is another whopper, as with "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means.

Go ahead and pick the pockets of your theologians for silver bullets to damn me, T - they're blanks anyway.

You will not find any real bullets - in the teachings of Holy Mother Church - to put in your little pistol for pointing at me.

tornpage Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:29 pm

Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

St. Thomas did, however, talk about the "necessity" of the sacraments:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

Summa, Third Part, Q.61, Art. 1

A nice gloss on the sacraments being "necessary," as in not "optional" or "superfluous" (Trent), don't ya think?

MRyan Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:21 pm

tornpage wrote:
MRyan wrote:Actually, you are arguing from the wrong end of the stick. I don’t have to “prove” that a particular blood martyr or anyone else who is celebrated in the martyrology and/or in the Church’s liturgy as having been martyred without the sacrament of Baptism was not aware of the entity of the Church as a divine institution, I only have to “prove” that the doctrine itself exists, that such souls can be saved, and that this doctrine has been held by the Church from the earliest days of blood martyrdom.

Wrong again - what an uncanny ability you have in that regard.

You have proven nothing. That Tradition supports baptism of blood is one thing.
That the same Tradition supports your notion that those who received baptism of blood were unaware of the Church as a divine institution is, in fact, unproven.

It is, rather, a dangerous and gratuitous assumption, totally unnecessary.

So . . . prove it.

No, Mark, once again you have it backwards. Anecdotal liturgical evidence of a blood martyr who appears not to have been aware of the Divine Institution of the Catholic Church (i.e., the 40th Martyr of Sebaste), let alone the divine precept requiring entry therein (to become a formal member by water baptism), cannot “prove” a doctrine, the doctrine was already in place. It can only prove there is anecdotal evidence for a blood martyr who appears to have been inculpably ignorant of the divine precepts necessitating water Baptism and/or formal Church membership. Not only that, it is not enough that someone be “aware” of the Church as a divine institution, one must also know of the necessity of joining the Church, and how formal incorporation is realized.
Again, just like you cannot prove that the 40th Martyr of Sebaste was explicitly aware of the Church as a divine institution, and was specifically aware of the divine precept necessitating formal membership and how that takes place, that I cannot “prove” with any certitude that the 40th Martyr of Sebaste is an example of “implicit desire” is totally irrelevant, all I have to prove is that the doctrine does in fact exist, which I already have, and all you have to do is prove that there is no such doctrine, or it is opposed to revealed truth, which you have not.

All you can do is cast mocking aspersions upon the greatest doctors of the Church and ecclesiastical tradition, while (call this the Doctors revenge), ultimately denying that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary as a necessity of means, and is a necessity of precept only. Which only renders water baptism “not necessary” in fact since not even a desire for it is necessary if ignorance or necessity excuses one from fulfilling the precept, at which point “the law ceases to urge’’ for there is no necessity of end that a necessity of precept is intrinsically and metaphysically ordered or related to, there is only an extrinsic moral ordering or relationship whereby the precept is dispensed with out of ignorance or necessity.

This is where your revisionist definition of “necessity of means” and impeccable “logic” has gotten you, the denial that water baptism is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. Fr. Feeney had the same flawed definition, and ended up denying the baptisms of blood and desire, whereas you went in the opposite direction by denying the necessity of baptism as a necessity of means. I would say yours is the more egregious (one can almost taste the sulfur - it being the docrtine of the devil).

But it does not appear to have occurred to you that your understanding of necessity of end just might be wrong (can you produce a single Doctor or theologian, except Fr. Feeney, who agrees with you?), and that Aquinas and the scholastics had it right all along, your mocking aspersions notwithstanding.

It’s quite simple, really: Please demonstrate where the Church has ever magisterially taught that the necessity of water Baptism and of being formally incorporated into the Church must be explicitly known/desired for salvation for the baptisms of blood and desire to be efficacious.

I’ll save you some time, you can’t. For if you could, we would have seen the evidence by now, as well as a formal correction to Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori, the Scholastics, the approved theology manuals, and even to the 1949 Holy Office Letter.

It is true that the object of one’s profession of faith must be explicitly known if it is essential to one’s salvation, but this does not hold true for the non-essential articles (for salvation) and divine precepts, such as the necessity of water baptism and the necessity to enter the Church, for these may be included in a general way within one’s profession of the essential articles, the desire to do the will of God, and supernatural charity.

MRyan Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:56 pm

tornpage wrote:Not only will you not find the Church using that linguistic garbage, but for that matter, you will not hear St. Thomas using that rhetorical rubbish, an "extrinsic" or "relative" necessity of means, either.

That's like saying "you will not find the Church using that theological term 'transubstantiation' until the 12th century when it's use became widespread, after being introduced only in the 11th century, with belief in the doctrine not being made obligatory until 1215 by the Fourth Council of the Lateran."

It was only ''in the 13th century, that Aristotelian metaphysics was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas'' (Wikipedia).

Of course, those who considered the term Transubstantiation "linguistic garbage" and "rhetorical rubbish" were the Protestant "Reformers", not that I am placing you in that same company, but you sure speak the same language against the Scholastics!

And so it was with "necessity of means" whereby theologians simply provided more precise theological language/flesh to the doctrines of the Angelical Doctor so that necessity of end, the baptisms of blood and desire and explicit/implicit desire could be more easily unified with "necessity of end" and the varying classifications and degrees of "necessity".

tornpage wrote:St. Thomas did, however, talk about the "necessity" of the sacraments:

[...]

Summa, Third Part, Q.61, Art. 1

A nice gloss on the sacraments being "necessary," as in not "optional" or "superfluous" (Trent), don't ya think?

Yes, indeed. And where did Aquinas or the Scholastics or the Church ever suggest there were no "necessary" sacraments; that these same sacraments were "optional", or "superfluous".

Speaking of "superfluous", here's what Aquinas says about that:

For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the sacraments are necessary, as stated above.

"As stated above", he is referring to STh III, q. 65. a. 4, so let's cite the passage in toto:

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

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

But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.

There you go, there's your "slam dunk" for St. Thomas seems to be saying that the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance (for those who have fallen from grace), as necessities of end, are "necessary to the individual ... simply and absolutely" such that without them the end cannot be obtained.

Taken in isolation, if St. Thomas said no more on this subject, we could agree with your definition of "necessity of means", meaning a simple and absolute necessity that precludes any division into the theological distinctions of "absolute" (intrinsic/metaphyscal) and "relative" (extrinsic/moral) necessities under one umbrella of necessity of means.

But, as we know, St. Thomas didn't stop there and like Holy Scripture, his system must be read as a coherent whole. In STh III, q. 66, a. 12; STh III, q. 68, a.2 and STh III, q. 69, a. 4, ad 2, St. Thomas goes into explicit detail on the "relative" or "extrinsic" necessity (without calling it these) of water baptism, and in the latter q. 69, even spells out explicit and implicit desire:

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; … So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.

So when St. Thomas Aquinas says that the Sacrament of Baptism, for example, is "simply and absolutely" necessary to the individual as a necessity of end, we know, given his entire body of teaching on this subject, that "absolute necessity" can only refer to the grace of the sacrament since, as he clearly teaches elsewhere (on several occasions), that the baptisms of blood and desire can replace the sacrament in times of necessity without compromising the unity or necessity of the sacrament.

The Scholastics, as I already said, simply expounded upon this same doctrine by providing the necessary theological distinctions by applying a more precise Aristotelian metaphysics which produced "a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics [that] was developed, [and] which found classic formulation in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas".

Sponsored content