A reply to Jim -- The salvation of the pre-missionary peoples.

I was replying to Jim, but then the thread got locked, but here's what I wanted to share, in brief:

With an infinite God, there are infinite possibilities. Before Christ, Baptism was not necessary; after Christ, it became absolute necessary, probably at Pentacost. We leave the details to the immutable God. Can angels Baptize? Sure, why not? To claim otherwise is to embrace atheism, or at least the tenets of atheism. Here is what Saint Thomas taught about angels:

"As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), 'The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved'; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel’s movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle..." (ST, Ia, q. 53, a. 2)

"This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel’s movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel’s movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2)." (ST, Ia, q. 53, a. 3, ad 3)

(Sounds like Einstein's Theory of Relativity!)

Now, if you are going to say that "only humans" can Baptize, then there is no reason why the angels (which may number in the trillions) cannot transport a missionary from one location to another to do just that.

As a follower of Father Feeney's theology, I profess and believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood; I just don't think that they happen in the absence of Sacramental Baptism of Water. So, exactly, Jim, what aspect of Church teaching am I "denying"? And, please be specific.

Does the Church teach that we must have faith that there are people who go to Heaven who die without Baptism? If so, then we must have faith in things that did not occur. This is absurd.

Jim, like many modernistic theologians, does not like miracles, at least those that occur on a large scale. However, "and the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. ." (Matthew 27:52-53) Did that event happen, Jim? If so, then angels can baptize, by the millions, which means that there may be a lot of North & South American Indians, indigenous Africans, Australians, and Asians in Paradise.

This is also a reply to Jims friend.

Indeed, since salvation was possible for some such folks before the coming of Christ, when Baptism was not required and saving grace as available through the more simple and implicit faith in the Savior outlined in Hebrews 11, the denial of baptism of desire and baptism of blood actually implies that the coming of Our Lord and Savior was the worst disaster possible for all those millions of pagans who lived before missionaries arrived! For it removed their only chance of salvation by imposing the new - and for them, impossible - absolute requirement of sacramental Baptism! That seems absurd as well as sick!"

I think this reasoning is an appeal to the emotions rather than Faith. It accuses wrongly those of the Feeneyite persuasion of trying to limit Gods mercy.
If the absence of baptism of desire and baptism of blood makes "the coming of Our Lord and Savior the worst disaster possible for all those millions of pagans" then what of those millions who lived before His coming? The only ones who could have had implicit faith in Christ were the Jews and quite a minority at the time.

Regarding the possibility of the receiving of the Gospel or sacramental Baptism being withheld from those who earnestly seek God, I can refer your friend to a two-part sermon on how God provides for such. It is an account of the conversion of the Flathead Indians of Montana.
We must remember also that it is of Divine revelation that only the few are saved.

Here's a link to the sermon.

http://www.audiosancto.org/search.php

Jehanne wrote:I was replying to Jim, but then the thread got locked, but here's what I wanted to share, in brief:

With an infinite God, there are infinite possibilities. Before Christ, Baptism was not necessary; after Christ, it became absolute necessary, probably at Pentacost. We leave the details to the immutable God. Can angels Baptize? Sure, why not? To claim otherwise is to embrace atheism, or at least the tenets of atheism. Here is what Saint Thomas taught about angels:

"As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), 'The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved'; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel’s movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle..." (ST, Ia, q. 53, a. 2)

"This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel’s movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel’s movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2)." (ST, Ia, q. 53, a. 3, ad 3)

(Sounds like Einstein's Theory of Relativity!)

Now, if you are going to say that "only humans" can Baptize, then there is no reason why the angels (which may number in the trillions) cannot transport a missionary from one location to another to do just that.

As a follower of Father Feeney's theology, I profess and believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood; I just don't think that they happen in the absence of Sacramental Baptism of Water. So, exactly, Jim, what aspect of Church teaching am I "denying"? And, please be specific.

Does the Church teach that we must have faith that there are people who go to Heaven who die without Baptism? If so, then we must have faith in things that did not occur. This is absurd.

Jim, like many modernistic theologians, does not like miracles, at least those that occur on a large scale. However, "and the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. ." (Matthew 27:52-53) Did that event happen, Jim? If so, then angels can baptize, by the millions, which means that there may be a lot of North & South American Indians, indigenous Africans, Australians, and Asians in Paradise.

The portion of the professor's argument to which you are referring to here was not the type of argument that I would have ever made myself. In fact, I think it is superfluous in light of this other paragraph:

"Doctrine that is taught unanimously as certain, century after century, by all approved theologians and in all episcopally and papally approved Catechisms, is the kind of doctrine that fulfills the requirements for an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Admittedly, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be said at this stage in history to belong to the first of the three categories of doctrine specified in the Church's current (1989) official Profession of Faith (i.e., dogmas, which are proposed by the Church as revealed truth to be accepted with 'divine and Catholic faith'). However, they belong in the second category of truths in the said profession, which are also taught infallibly. These are truths "to be held definitively"; for even if not themselves revealed, they are implied in some way by revelation, and so are necessary for "guarding and expounding" the revealed deposit."

If the above is true, then all Feeneyite arguments become moot. Of course, Mryan has already been making the similar point regarding submission of the mind/will...ad nauseum, but, to no avail. So, I can see no reason to rehash what has already been expounded upon by people better versed than me in the matter by addressing your obtuse questions. If you, or anyone, can clearly and authoritatively demonstrate that the italicized words in the above paragraph are false, then what are you waiting for?

Roguejim wrote:The portion of the professor's argument to which you are referring to here was not the type of argument that I would have ever made myself. In fact, I think it is superfluous in light of this other paragraph:

"Doctrine that is taught unanimously as certain, century after century, by all approved theologians and in all episcopally and papally approved Catechisms, is the kind of doctrine that fulfills the requirements for an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Admittedly, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be said at this stage in history to belong to the first of the three categories of doctrine specified in the Church's current (1989) official Profession of Faith (i.e., dogmas, which are proposed by the Church as revealed truth to be accepted with 'divine and Catholic faith'). However, they belong in the second category of truths in the said profession, which are also taught infallibly. These are truths "to be held definitively"; for even if not themselves revealed, they are implied in some way by revelation, and so are necessary for "guarding and expounding" the revealed deposit."

If the above is true, then all Feeneyite arguments become moot. Of course, Mryan has already been making the similar point regarding submission of the mind/will...ad nauseum, but, to no avail. So, I can see no reason to rehash what has already been expounded upon by people better versed than me in the matter by addressing your obtuse questions. If you, or anyone, can clearly and authoritatively demonstrate that the italicized words in the above paragraph are false, then what are you waiting for?

I believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as revealed truths of the Faith. So did Father Feeney, so do all "Feeneyites." We just do not believe that such happen apart from Sacramental Baptism in Water, ever. So, again, what exactly, am I "denying" here??

Prior to Saint Thomas and Peter Abelard it was "taught unanimously as certain, century after century, by all approved theologians" that infants who died without Baptism went to the Hell of Suffering, where they suffered positive punishment for original sin, that is, "punishment of the senses." Saint Thomas refined this teaching, believing that such infants went to the Hell of Separation only, where they would experience a "natural happiness" for all time and eternity. Is it de fide that such infants go to Hell proper and suffer there forever? Such a view was universally held, was it not? Of, was their exact fate (other than Heaven, of course, which they do not go to per the infallible declaration of Carthage) in the realm of theological opinion?

If Baptism of Desire and/or Blood is "an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium," why, then, did Saint Augustine feel free to change his mind on the subject, holding to differing viewpoints throughout his life? And, why are "Feeneyites" in full communion with Rome today? Is it heretical to say that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are absolutely true but just never happen? Is is heretical to say that a Pope could lose his office through heresy but that such never happens? Is it heretical to say that a Bishop could "consecrate" another individual while withholding all intent and never reveal that fact but that the Holy Spirit would not allow such to happen? Is it heretical to say that those whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life have also been predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water?

So many questions, so few answers.

Jehanne wrote:I believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as revealed truths of the Faith. So did Father Feeney, so do all "Feeneyites."

I disagree. I do not believe that 'baptism of desire' is a revealed truth of the Faith. The Baptism of Blood experienced by the martyrs is real enough, but it is a second baptism, not a replacement.

Pardon my absence from these discussions … I’ll get back into it eventually, even if I inadvertently miss a response or two … or three.

But I think I need to clear the air by stating my position ... again. I have never maintained that religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic teachings of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is, as the retired theologian argues, due to the fact that these teachings:

belong in the second category of truths in the said profession, which are also taught infallibly. These are truths "to be held definitively"; for even if not themselves revealed, they are implied in some way by revelation, and so are necessary for "guarding and expounding" the revealed deposit.

These teachings may in fact be infallible (and I believe they are) because they are held unanimously by the Bishops and the theologians, they have been taught consistently (with a universal moral consensus) since at least the Council of Trent and have been confirmed by several popes; but, so that we may know for certain that a given teaching belongs to the infallible universal and ordinary magisterium, my reading of the CDF Commentary of the Professio Fidei tells me that either one of two conditions must be met:

1.

9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or [/i]non-defining[/i]. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.[17] The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

2.

[17] It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church's faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.

Very simply, I do not believe 1), that the pope has ever declared “explicitly” that baptism of desire “belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph)”. Neither can it be proven with absolute certitude that 2), belief in baptism of desire is “necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition … understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense”.

Obviously, despite the fact that the CCC clearly teaches that the Church has always held the firm conviction that baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) is salvific, and assures the salvation of those who are properly disposed, Br. Andre, the St. Benedict Center and some members of this forum dispute that baptism of desire has ever been understood in a diachronic sense (heck, some say it is not a “doctrine” or an "authentic" teaching at all; let alone from the "ordinary magisterium", but the novel product of some fevered sentimental intellects – hah!).

So why waste our time arguing over something neither side can “prove”, and can only lead to unfounded and rash accusations of “heresy”; such as the old and pathetic: “go ahead, prove that I am not a Catholic and that my salvation hinges on professing my Faith in baptism of desire!”

Please, spare me the melodrama that results only in locked threads.

But, since definitive or indisputable proof is lacking, I do not argue from the position of the retired theologian, but from the CDF’s Commentary on the third proposition of the Professio fidei, which states:

10. "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. 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.

Have you heard that before?

Now, anyone who wants to argue that I do not know what my position is, or that I “must” conclude that the retired theologian is correct, is simply begging for a fight where none exists. But I think most members of this forum already know that.

Allow me to address one more point made by the retired theologian. I’m not sure citing Fr. Ott’s opinion that baptism of desire is at least “proximate to the faith” qualifies as evidence that baptism of desire belongs to the infallible UOM, when the opinions of the theologians are not consistent in this regard. For example, while every single one off the 25 theologians or canonists polled by Fr. Cekada taught baptism of desire as a common doctrine, nine of these held it as either fidei proxima (2, Ott and Sola) or de fide (7). Five more held baptism of desire as theologically certain, or a constant Catholic doctrine.

This does not mean that the other theologians who held baptism of desire as a common doctrine did not consider baptism of desire as either fidei proxima or de fide, but only that they did not state so explicitly. Can we "assume” that they did so anyway? No. Though baptism of desire is universally held by the theologians as at least a common doctrine of the Church, it really does matter that we know for certain how the Church expects the Faithful to hold the doctrine ... if it is to be held as more than a non-revealed authentic and common doctrine requiring not only the submission of the mind and will, but the assent of faith. The latter simply cannot be proven ... so why beat it to death?

Those who argue that the doctrine of baptism of desire does not require any submission of the mind and will whatsoever are those with whom I’ve been engaged to argue otherwise.

Btw, those who believe Fr. Cekada was being selective in his research only have to provide the testimony of any theologian or canonist since the Council of Trent who disagreed with this common doctrine.

Good luck with that

Jehanne wrote:

Roguejim wrote:The portion of the professor's argument to which you are referring to here was not the type of argument that I would have ever made myself. In fact, I think it is superfluous in light of this other paragraph:

"Doctrine that is taught unanimously as certain, century after century, by all approved theologians and in all episcopally and papally approved Catechisms, is the kind of doctrine that fulfills the requirements for an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Admittedly, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be said at this stage in history to belong to the first of the three categories of doctrine specified in the Church's current (1989) official Profession of Faith (i.e., dogmas, which are proposed by the Church as revealed truth to be accepted with 'divine and Catholic faith'). However, they belong in the second category of truths in the said profession, which are also taught infallibly. These are truths "to be held definitively"; for even if not themselves revealed, they are implied in some way by revelation, and so are necessary for "guarding and expounding" the revealed deposit."

If the above is true, then all Feeneyite arguments become moot. Of course, Mryan has already been making the similar point regarding submission of the mind/will...ad nauseum, but, to no avail. So, I can see no reason to rehash what has already been expounded upon by people better versed than me in the matter by addressing your obtuse questions. If you, or anyone, can clearly and authoritatively demonstrate that the italicized words in the above paragraph are false, then what are you waiting for?

I believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as revealed truths of the Faith. So did Father Feeney, so do all "Feeneyites." We just do not believe that such happen apart from Sacramental Baptism in Water, ever. So, again, what exactly, am I "denying" here??

This has all been beaten to death already with little resolution, and I don't have Mryan's tenacity or even interest to prolong this. So, I reserve the right to bail out without notice. I'm busy, really.

Let me ask a question. I'm better at questions than I am at answers.

Does the Church teach that an individual can attain the Beatific Vision apart from Sacramental Baptism in Water? Yes, or no.

If your answer is "yes", then I ask if you accept the teaching as true?

If your answer is "no", then I ask you to review this entire thread again for compelling evidence that She does in fact teach this. I would then refer you to the professor's italicized remarks again, although I don't believe for a second that the circle will be broken. I'm holding out for a miracle, actually.

As for what "all Feeneyites" believe, Feeneyite MarianLibrarian apparently disagrees with you. So which one of you is the genuine Feeneyite, and which is the heretic? As a challenge, I would ask you to question Bro. Andre Marie, and see if he regards baptism of desire as a "revealed truth of the Faith." It would be nice to know exactly what your future Superior believes before signing up, don't you think? I've already approached him on this, but I'd be very much interested in your own results. And, I think the entire forum would benefit greatly if you could get his permission to actually copy/paste his answer.

Jehanne wrote:
I believe in both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood as revealed truths of the Faith. So did Father Feeney, so do all "Feeneyites."

Fr. Feeney, Br. Andre and every Feeneyite I know would find your assertion that "both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood [are] revealed truths of the Faith" quite appalling.

I guess you can believe and say anything you want, but you don't seem to realize the breadth and depth of your contradictions that logically flow from your other comments if baptism of desire is in fact a divinely "revealed truth".

Do you even know what a divinely "revealed truth" is? If you did, you would not imagine a "revealed truth" of the deposit of faith that is also a "null set".

Q. Why has this Truth been divinely revealed?
A. So we may know that it is only true in theory ... but never happens.

This just gets weirder and weirder.

To answer your (MRyan) and Jim's question, Feeneyism is just the following:

Feeneyism asserts that those individuals predestined by the One and Triune God to everlasting life, His Elect, are also predestined by Him, without exception, to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

It's that simple. We may disagree about the specifics, but all "Feeneyites" will agree with the above statement.

Sedevacantism is possible, but such will never happen.

Jehanne wrote:To answer your (MRyan) and Jim's question, Feeneyism is just the following:

Feeneyism asserts that those individuals predestined by the One and Triune God to everlasting life, His Elect, are also predestined by Him, without exception, to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

It's that simple. We may disagree about the specifics, but all "Feeneyites" will agree with the above statement.

By the very fact that you say that you follow the doctrine (theology) of Fr. Feeney, while you also believe that baptism of desire is a divinely revealed truth, only proves that you have no idea what "Feeneyism" is.

Jehanne wrote:To answer your (MRyan) and Jim's question, Feeneyism is just the following:

Feeneyism asserts that those individuals predestined by the One and Triune God to everlasting life, His Elect, are also predestined by Him, without exception, to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

It's that simple. We may disagree about the specifics, but all "Feeneyites" will agree with the above statement.

Sedevacantism is possible, but such will never happen.

This is no answer to any query of mine. It is a dodge.

Now, reconcile your definition of Feeneyism with the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. Actually, forget it. I'm done with this thread.