Father Muller's "The Catholic Dogma"

A nice PDF download available here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23386974/THE-CATHOLIC-DOGMA-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nullus-omnino-Salvatur-by-Fr-Michael-Mueller-C-SS-R

Plus, Father Feeney's Bread of Life:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23249154/Bread-of-Life-by-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-S-J

If the teaching in the Church in the last 100 or so years was oh-so-clear regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.....then why was Fr. Michael Mueller silenced?

The fact that he was silenced (while holding baptism of desire and baptism of blood by the way) is just evidence that the real issue is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the baptism of desire debate is just a side issue.

baptism of desire was never considered a problem for the same reason that on this forum we debate baptism of desire but hardly ever talk about baptism of blood. baptism of blood really isn't that much of an issue. I mean, how many martyrs are there anyway?

That is precisely why the Church did not examine baptism of desire closely in the past, after all, how many catechumens would get hit by a car (or a wagon, LOL) on their way to the baptismal font? It was never seen as a problem. Now that baptism of desire has been used to say that the followers of almost any false religion are saved, it needs to be re-examined.

Most modern people see the common post-Vatican II (for lack of a better way of describing it) line on salvation for what it is and that is why they do not take religion seriously.

I said it before and I will say it again that even MRyan and Fr. Harrison hold an extremely minority position on the issue.

RashaLampa wrote:If the teaching in the Church in the last 100 or so years was oh-so-clear regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.....then why was Fr. Michael Mueller silenced?

The fact that he was silenced (while holding baptism of desire and baptism of blood by the way) is just evidence that the real issue is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the baptism of desire debate is just a side issue.

baptism of desire was never considered a problem for the same reason that on this forum we debate baptism of desire but hardly ever talk about baptism of blood. baptism of blood really isn't that much of an issue. I mean, how many martyrs are there anyway?

That is precisely why the Church did not examine baptism of desire closely in the past, after all, how many catechumens would get hit by a car (or a wagon, LOL) on their way to the baptismal font? It was never seen as a problem. Now that baptism of desire has been used to say that the followers of almost any false religion are saved, it needs to be re-examined.

But that is heresy and is not what the Church teaches, so why do you misrepresent the doctrine? You mean now that baptism of desire is so often abused and exaggerated, that the true sense of the doctrine as the Church understands it should finally be rejected?

If you do not see baptism of blood and baptism of desire as an issue, why do you persist in telling us that the Ordinary Magisterium has been teaching error for centuries and that she is opposed to her own dogma?

In point of fact, you need to reacquaint yourself with what Fr. Mueller taught on invincible ignorance and the possibility of salvation for those who remain outside the visible Church, precisely as Pope Pius IX taught this same doctrine.

After doing so, I guess you'll have to “re-examine” Fr. Mueller's doctrine.

RashaLampa wrote:
I said it before and I will say it again that even MRyan and Fr. Harrison hold an extremely minority position on the issue.

If you mean by this that we hold that an explicit faith in our Lord is necessary for salvation, then you are correct; but the difference is this: neither Fr. Harrison nor I "deny and reject" the Church's teaching that leaves open the possibility of a supernatural faith where faith in our Lord (objectively speaking) is implicit in a supernatural and explicit belief in God as Creator and Rewarder to those that fear Him.

Obviously, at the moment of death, all essential matters of faith will be fully revealed to those who are saved in faith, hope and charity.

It's not heresy, and we have been through this a "million" times. Even according to the modern Church, Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and so, presently, are his followers. If you claim to follow the Magisterium, then you can hardly judge "Feeneyism" and hence, Rasha, as to holding heretical ideas, for according to Rome, they are fully Catholic. Read this for more information:

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

In addition, as I have already posted (and, for which, you strained to say there were no retractions and/or contradictions), Saint Augustine, clearly and irrefutably, changed his mind regarding Baptism of Desire, something that the liberal Father Karl Rahner was prepared to admit. If Baptism of Desire & Blood were part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, as I have said before, why, then, did Saint Augustine feel free to change his mind about those ideas? Clearly, Rahner, in spite of his theologian liberalism, was at least honest:

http://catholicism.org/catholic-dogma-mueller.html

So, stop saying that the Church has taught Baptism of Desire through Her Ordinary Magisterium. Peter Abelard denied it, and even though he was condemned for other heretical ideas, his insistence on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism did not make the list:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

It is best to view Baptism of Desire & Blood as being null sets, that is, devoid of any human beings. The sovereignty of the One and Triune God over His Creation would seem to preclude either one. But again, this observation is just a theological opinion, which is all that the followers of Father Feeney have ever claimed.

Actually quite honestly, aside from the illogic of the post-Vatican II position on salvation, one of the reasons that let me to even consider the "Feeneyite" position in the first place was the Church's approval of the Abbey, the Saint Benedict Center in Still River, and the nuns community in Still River, not to mention Fr. Feeney's reconciliation without having to recant any of his position.

MRyan, is the "living Church" in error for approving these communities knowing full well that they defend the good name of their founder AND hold to the "strict" interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Jehanne wrote:It's not heresy, and we have been through this a "million" times. Even according to the modern Church, Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and so, presently, are his followers. If you claim to follow the Magisterium, then you can hardly judge "Feeneyism" and hence, Rasha, as to holding heretical ideas, for according to Rome, they are fully Catholic. Read this for more information:

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

So what, and what has that to do with the price of tea in China? Are you going to tell me that it is the official position of the St. Benedict Center that there is no sanctification outside of actual reception of the sacraments as it its presented by some of the “we Feeneyites” on this forum?

That is not the position of the St. Benedict Center, and I know that for a fact.

Or will you tell me that one or more of the St. Benedict Center factions openly “deny and reject” the Ordinary Magisterium by stating explicitly that she is in error with her consistent teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire? If that is their position, they should be condemned; but, if they do so openly dissent, why does it surprise you when the Church hardly ever uses her authority to admonish those who dissent from her Ordinary teaching authority?

The so-called “magisterial” private letters of a canon lawyer and a diocesan official say nothing about any of the St. Benedict Center factions being authorized to “deny and reject” the Church's Ordinary teachings, and I would challenge you to find such open dissent on any of their websites as you find on this Forum.

If you can find one St. Benedict Center heavyweight who proclaims that Trent's Canon 2 On Baptism is a condemnation of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, bring him forward; but I know for a fact that the head honchos of the St. Benedict Center NH completely reject such an erroneous and amateurish interpretation of the Canon.

How are we doing so far, Feeneyites? Why are so many of you so quick to align yourselves with an organization whose doctrines you oppose?

Jehanne wrote:In addition, as I have already posted (and, for which, you strained to say there were no retractions and/or contradictions), Saint Augustine, clearly and irrefutably, changed his mind regarding Baptism of Desire, something that the liberal Father Karl Rahner was prepared to admit. If Baptism of Desire & Blood were part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, as I have said before, why, then, did Saint Augustine feel free to change his mind about those ideas? Clearly, Rahner, in spite of his theologian liberalism, was at least honest:

http://catholicism.org/catholic-dogma-mueller.html

Oh sure, Fr. Rahner is your best friend when it suits you and you can't even consider that he might be wrong, and the majority of other scholastics correct when they say that St. Augustine did not change his position and remained consistent throughout, as I demonstrated. I did not “strain” at anything but went over his exact words to demonstrate that he was in fact consistent with his teachings on both baptism of desire and predestination when he highlighted in your own citation “the absurdity of saying that the elect predestined for baptism ('they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism') can be can be 'snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.'"

So much for St. Augustine's “change” in position.

Jehanne wrote:So, stop saying that the Church has taught Baptism of Desire through Her Ordinary Magisterium. Peter Abelard denied it, and even though he was condemned for other heretical ideas, his insistence on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism did not make the list:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

Do you even know what the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church IS? How can you say such a thing when I presented one Magisterial teaching after another expressing the same Ordinary teaching? This is like the Twilight Zone.

And what does the section by Fr. Ott on Baptism have to do with Peter Abelard's “insistence on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism” not making “the list”?

It is interesting to read where:

Notably enough, Abelard is anxious to assure the reader that neither the sacrament of baptism nor any merely "external act" can effect righteousness. We do not hold to the view that we are justified by works, he asserts; and thus takes a position firmly opposed to the doctrine that will later be referred to as sacramental efficacy ex opere operato.

http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.1_62McMahon.pdf

Well, that sounds like it should have made “the list” to me!

In the same article, you can read where Abelard did in fact seem to believe in baptism of desire, sort of! His theories on Penance were also quite novel!

Forget Abelard, I can't keep up with him, stay with the Magisterium!

Jehanne wrote:It is best to view Baptism of Desire & Blood as being null sets, that is, devoid of any human beings. The sovereignty of the One and Triune God over His Creation would seem to preclude either one. But again, this observation is just a theological opinion, which is all that the followers of Father Feeney have ever claimed.

Oh, there you go again with your “null sets”. Please, spare me such empty nullity.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:It's not heresy, and we have been through this a "million" times. Even according to the modern Church, Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome and so, presently, are his followers. If you claim to follow the Magisterium, then you can hardly judge "Feeneyism" and hence, Rasha, as to holding heretical ideas, for according to Rome, they are fully Catholic. Read this for more information:

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

So what, and what has that to do with the price of tea in China? Are you going to tell me that it is the official position of the St. Benedict Center that there is no sanctification outside of actual reception of the sacraments as it its presented by some of the “we Feeneyites” on this forum?

That is not the position of the St. Benedict Center, and I know that for a fact.

Or will you tell me that one or more of the St. Benedict Center factions openly “deny and reject” the Ordinary Magisterium by stating explicitly that she is in error with her consistent teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire? If that is their position, they should be condemned; but, if they do so openly dissent, why does it surprise you when the Church hardly ever uses her authority to admonish those who dissent from her Ordinary teaching authority?

The so-called “magisterial” private letters of a canon lawyer and a diocesan official say nothing about any of the St. Benedict Center factions being authorized to “deny and reject” the Church's Ordinary teachings, and I would challenge you to find such open dissent on any of their websites as you find on this Forum.

If you can find one St. Benedict Center heavyweight who proclaims that Trent's Canon 2 On Baptism is a condemnation of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, bring him forward; but I know for a fact that the head honchos of the St. Benedict Center NH completely reject such an erroneous and amateurish interpretation of the Canon.

How are we doing so far, Feeneyites? Why are so many of you so quick to align yourselves with an organization whose doctrines you oppose?

Yeah, sure, and how do you know what we (or I) believe? In my OP, I posted a link to Father Feeney's Bread of Life. Are you saying that his work contained "doctrinal errors"? If so, explain this:

http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/

Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church with the approval of Pope Paul VI. What "higher" authority do you want?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:In addition, as I have already posted (and, for which, you strained to say there were no retractions and/or contradictions), Saint Augustine, clearly and irrefutably, changed his mind regarding Baptism of Desire, something that the liberal Father Karl Rahner was prepared to admit. If Baptism of Desire & Blood were part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, as I have said before, why, then, did Saint Augustine feel free to change his mind about those ideas? Clearly, Rahner, in spite of his theologian liberalism, was at least honest:

http://catholicism.org/catholic-dogma-mueller.html

Oh sure, Fr. Rahner is your best friend when it suits you and you can't even consider that he might be wrong, and the majority of other scholastics correct when they say that St. Augustine did not change his position and remained consistent throughout, as I demonstrated. I did not “strain” at anything but went over his exact words to demonstrate that he was in fact consistent with his teachings on both baptism of desire and predestination when he highlighted in your own citation “the absurdity of saying that the elect predestined for baptism ('they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism') can be can be 'snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.'"

So, Rahner was wrong, and you are right?? Well, whom shall we believe?

MRyan wrote:So much for St. Augustine's “change” in position.

So, why did Saint Augustine bother to write this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Church-Saint-Augustine-Retractions/dp/0813209706

Still in print, by the way!

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:So, stop saying that the Church has taught Baptism of Desire through Her Ordinary Magisterium. Peter Abelard denied it, and even though he was condemned for other heretical ideas, his insistence on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism did not make the list:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

Do you even know what the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church IS? How can you say such a thing when I presented one Magisterial teaching after another expressing the same Ordinary teaching? This is like the Twilight Zone.

Ordinary Magisterium = Deposit of Faith. This principle applies:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html

St. Vincent of Lerins wrote: Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

MRyan wrote:And what does the section by Fr. Ott on Baptism have to do with Peter Abelard's “insistence on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism” not making “the list”?

It is interesting to read where:

Notably enough, Abelard is anxious to assure the reader that neither the sacrament of baptism nor any merely "external act" can effect righteousness. We do not hold to the view that we are justified by works, he asserts; and thus takes a position firmly opposed to the doctrine that will later be referred to as sacramental efficacy ex opere operato.

http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.1_62McMahon.pdf

Well, that sounds like it should have made “the list” to me!

In the same article, you can read where Abelard did in fact seem to believe in baptism of desire, sort of! His theories on Penance were also quite novel!

Forget Abelard, I can't keep up with him, stay with the Magisterium!

How many theologians attach a de fide note to Baptism of Desire & Blood? Can you find Baptism of Desire & Blood anywhere on this list:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm

You told me in an earlier post that "all that matters is what the Church teaches," so where is it?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:It is best to view Baptism of Desire & Blood as being null sets, that is, devoid of any human beings. The sovereignty of the One and Triune God over His Creation would seem to preclude either one. But again, this observation is just a theological opinion, which is all that the followers of Father Feeney have ever claimed.

Oh, there you go again with your “null sets”. Please, spare me such empty nullity.

Are you saying that there are people who are actually saved via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood without Water Baptism? Who are these people? How many? One? Two? Thousands? Millions? Billions? Are you saying that it is impossible for the One and Triune God to bring the Sacrament of Baptism via Water to these people? Are you saying that God has no choice but to save them via their desire alone???

RashaLampa wrote:Actually quite honestly, aside from the illogic of the post-Vatican II position on salvation, one of the reasons that let me to even consider the "Feeneyite" position in the first place was the Church's approval of the Abbey, the Saint Benedict Center in Still River, and the nuns community in Still River, not to mention Fr. Feeney's reconciliation without having to recant any of his position.

Me too, and and I have no problem with that whatsoever. But we should careful in discerning just what their “official position” is these days when the last remaining St. Benedict Center faction is seeking regularization. I can assure you that they are very careful to couch the “dissent” we so often hear about in the language of the theologians; in particular Cardinal Dulles (go figure – the original Feeneyite) and, for example, his openly taking issue with Pope JPII's teaching that slavery is intrinsically immoral, without the "denial and rejection" we hear about so openly here.

RashaLampa wrote:MRyan, is the "living Church" in error for approving these communities knowing full well that they defend the good name of their founder AND hold to the "strict" interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

Of course not; but two things to keep in mind. First, don't confuse the authority of the Church teaching with her prudential actions (or the lack thereof). The latter does not always follow from the former. Second, what has the St. Benedict Center said lately that the magisterium would take offense to?

Is the St. Benedict Center accusing their Bishops of "heresy"? Are they refusing the authority of their local Ordinaries, or is the last of the major holdouts seeking reconciliation and approval? You would be fooling yourself if you thought this was the same St. Benedict Center of 1952.

Let them openly “deny and reject” the authority and teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, and you might have a different outcome; but perhaps not. The more militant SSPX factions can “deny and reject” the teachings of VCII without reprisal while Bishop Fellay seems to want to negotiate in good faith. I doubt if Br. Andre wants to do anything so rash as to bite the hand that feeds him during his own reconciliation efforts.

Just peruse the other St. Benedict Center websites that enjoy full communion with the Church and you will not find anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church, or any attitude of open "dissent" towards the authority of the Church.

Remember what Bro. Sennott wrote about the writings and teachings of Fr. Feeney and his propensity to exaggerate his “opinions”, especially on baptism of desire. If, as Bro. Sennott said, Fr. Feeney was ready to submit to the pope just as soon as he “said” that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are authentic expressions of Catholic doctrine, what is the St. Benedict Center waiting for? How may times and in how many ways must the Pope “say” it?

This original St. Benedict Center accepted baptism of blood and baptism of desire, so what's the big deal? Fight the abuse of the doctrine and defend Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from the rooftops – the fight must go on – but not apart from the Church.

The original dissent from the Holy Office Letter and the St. Benedict Center's open rejection of that so-called "heretical" letter has never been officially resolved, as far as I know. But I doubt if today's St. Benedict Center would use such strong language when they are permitted to hold the position which says that even with supernatural faith and perfect charity an "implicit desire" for the sacrament or to enter the Church is not sufficient for salvation; but this permission cannot come at the expense of "rejecting" the authority of the Church in teaching otherwise, which she clearly does.

At least that's the way I see it.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
If you can find one St. Benedict Center heavyweight who proclaims that Trent's Canon 2 On Baptism is a condemnation of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, bring him forward; but I know for a fact that the head honchos of the St. Benedict Center NH completely reject such an erroneous and amateurish interpretation of the Canon.

How are we doing so far, Feeneyites? Why are so many of you so quick to align yourselves with an organization whose doctrines you oppose?

Yeah, sure, and how do you know what we (or I) believe? In my OP, I posted a link to Father Feeney's Bread of Life. Are you saying that his work contained "doctrinal errors"? If so, explain this:

http://brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/

Yes, Bread of Life did contain “doctrinal errors”, but it’s funny, I do not see “Bread of Life” mentioned anywhere in Br. Andre’s article The Status of Father Feeney’s Doctrinal Position.

What I did see was the reference to They Fought the Good Fight, with this write-up:

“The documents and facts presented in They Fought the Good Fight: Orestes Brownson and Father Feeney, speak for themselves, not only illuminating the similarity of “liberal Catholicism,” ‘Americanism,” and post-conciliar “neo-Modernism,” viz. a willingness to compromise on doctrine for the sake of friendship, which in every instance postulates a repudiation in principle or practice of the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and a minimization of devotion to Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces. Not all the problems of the Church in the USA began after the Council.” — Father Peter Fehlner, o. F. M., Conv.

Fr. Feeney and Orestes Brownson, the latter of whom not only taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but salvation for the invincibly ignorant through internal inspiration and invisible unity with the Church. If you can show me where They Fought the Good Fight mentioned anywhere that baptism of desire is “heretical”, go ahead (good luck with that). But you will see in the comments section where Br. Andre writes:

The Church having never censured them [baptism of blood and baptism of desire], they can be understood in an orthodox sense (as St. Thomas understood them), and I have no beef with those who advance these notions. What I would never grant — and almost everyone else does — is that supernatural faith, hope, and charity can be dispensed with. Supernatural faith is what Christ revealed, the Catholic Faith. It is indispensable for salvation.

Well, it’s nice to see that Br. Andre has no “beef” with the Church for advancing these “notions”, and he also concedes that baptism of blood and baptism of desire, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, are “orthodox” teachings, regardless of the fact that he still holds them as mere “theological opinions”, as if the Church does not teach these same doctrines through her Ordinary Magisterium. Now where have we heard that before?

So much for baptism of desire being opposed to Trent, Sess, VII, Canon 2, On Baptism, and so much for the charge of “heresy”, as we see in “Bread of Life”; why is that?

So tell me, what is it that you would like for me to explain?

Jehanne wrote:Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church with the approval of Pope Paul VI. What "higher" authority do you want?

And I say Amen to that! Do you have a point? Why would I object to Fr. Feeney’s reconciliation? I mean, I didn’t object when the Pope lifted the excommunications for the SSPX Bishops, even when the more radical among them said that the excommunications were bogus anyway and denied the authority of the Pope’s supreme Primacy to carry out his initial judgment -- which is not subject to appeal by anyone.

If you ask him, Br. Andre will deny that Fr. Feeney actually held baptism of desire to be “heretical”; notwithstanding what Bread of Life said (another story of intrigue I don’t have time for).

Holding to the more rigid formulas for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Baptism is not and never has been the problem, it is the “denial and rejection” of the Church’s authentic and Ordinary teaching authority over the interpretation of her own dogmas where some rad Feeneyites get into trouble. See my last post to Rasha for a more detailed explanation.

Jehanne wrote:So, Rahner was wrong, and you are right?? Well, whom shall we believe?

Believe the Church. How’s that for a radical and novel concept?

Fr. Rahner believed in universal salvation; I don’t. Who are you going to believe?

Jehanne wrote:So, why did Saint Augustine bother to write this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Church-Saint-Augustine-Retractions/dp/0813209706

So show me the “retraction” where St. Augustine “changed” his position on baptism of desire.

Jehanne wrote:Ordinary Magisterium = Deposit of Faith. This principle applies:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html

You just proved that you don’t understand for a minute what the Ordinary Magisterium actually represents. You are clueless and confuse the assent of faith towards revelation with religious submission to the authority of the Church to teach doctrines not explicitly revealed.

Jehanne wrote:How many theologians attach a de fide note to Baptism of Desire & Blood?

Who cares? But there about seven of the Scholastics, with the rest holding it at least as certain; meaning, there is not one theologian who “denies” the doctrines.

Jehanne wrote:Can you find Baptism of Desire & Blood anywhere on this list:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm

Why yes; I can, right here:

10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.19

As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.38

The dogmatic declarations of Trent, The Roman Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, the CCC, a Papal Allocution, Papal Letters, a Letter of the Holy Office, a Papal Encyclical and other magisterial documents all profess the same authentic and ordinary teaching of the magisterium on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. And we know the intention (mind and will) of the supreme teacher and legislator in setting forth these doctrines, and we also know by the frequent repetition and by the tenor and verbal expressions of the doctrines that we owe at least the religious submission of the mind and will to these teachings and to the authority of the Church.

Moreover, in the PROFESSION OF FAITH and THE OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, we read:

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.

I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.

So help me God, and God's Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.

Any questions?

You told me in an earlier post that "all that matters is what the Church teaches," so where is it?

It’s right here (among other places):

The Council of Trent:
Session 6, Ch. 4: “And this translation [‘a translation … to the state of grace,’], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Session 7, Canon 4: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”

Session 6, Chapter XVI: “… we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace…”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566:

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

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

The Douay Catechism of 1649
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Catechetical_1649.php

The Douay Catechism of 1649
by Henry Tuberville, D.D.

CHAP. XI. Of the Sacraments in general.

Baptism Expounded.

Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. "Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

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

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

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

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

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

The Catechism of The Catholic Church:

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

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

Any questions?

Jehanne wrote:Are you saying that there are people who are actually saved via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood without Water Baptism? Who are these people? How many? One? Two? Thousands? Millions? Billions? Are you saying that it is impossible for the One and Triune God to bring the Sacrament of Baptism via Water to these people? Are you saying that God has no choice but to save them via their desire alone???

I have no idea and I don't really care. God can regenerate and save a soul by whatever means He so desires, but never apart from or outside His Mystical Body, and never without the intrinsic necessities of faith, charity, intention and sanctifying grace.

You sure spend a lot of time arguing about things that are completely out of your hands. Don't you people have jobs?

MRyan wrote:Yes, Bread of Life did contain “doctrinal errors”, but it’s funny, I do not see “Bread of Life” mentioned anywhere in Br. Andre’s article The Status of Father Feeney’s Doctrinal Position.

Name one.

MRyan wrote:The dogmatic declarations of Trent, The Roman Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, the CCC, a Papal Allocution, Papal Letters, a Letter of the Holy Office, a Papal Encyclical and other magisterial documents all profess the same authentic and ordinary teaching of the magisterium on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. And we know the intention (mind and will) of the supreme teacher and legislator in setting forth these doctrines, and we also know by the frequent repetition and by the tenor and verbal expressions of the doctrines that we owe at least the religious submission of the mind and will to these teachings and to the authority of the Church.

I have never denied Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, as they were taught by Saint Thomas. I have said that they represent "null sets." How is that "denying" them?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566: wrote:

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

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

A set with zero members. Sure, it is possible, but I am asserting such will never happen. Are you claiming that all catechumens who die without Baptism go to Heaven?

MRyan wrote:Any questions?

No, except, perhaps, why you have putting "words in our mouth," making claims for us that we have never made.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Are you saying that there are people who are actually saved via Baptism of Desire and/or Blood without Water Baptism? Who are these people? How many? One? Two? Thousands? Millions? Billions? Are you saying that it is impossible for the One and Triune God to bring the Sacrament of Baptism via Water to these people? Are you saying that God has no choice but to save them via their desire alone???

I have no idea and I don't really care. God can regenerate and save a soul by whatever means He so desires, but never apart from or outside His Mystical Body, and never without the intrinsic necessities of faith, charity, intention and sanctifying grace.

Well, then we agree. It is just our opinion that the One and Triune God will, in every instance, save those whom He will save via Sacramental Baptism, that is, Baptism by Water.