The Fathers on Baptism of Blood

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.

This is one of those gratuitous assertions having no basis in historical fact, tradition or teaching. Since you are prone to exaggeration and logical fallacy, it is no wonder that you take the fact that baptism of blood was indeed known as a “second baptism” for the Baptized faithful, but you ignore the whole truth of the matter when it is an established fact that blood martyrdom also has a strong and ancient tradition as serving as a replacement for water baptism. Here is but a sampling of proof texts bearing witness to this truth:

Tertullian: "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]), 12). "We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid, 16).

St. Cyprian of Carthage (Bishop), 252AD: “The catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism.” "[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]). " [Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem: "If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom. . . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

John Chrysostom: "Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe: "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

This why Duckbiill posted a thread asking for “proof” of baptism of desire in the writing of the early Fathers, but specifically requested that we avoid the testimony for baptism of blood -- he knew better than to challenge the record. This is why Brian Kelly from the St. Benedict Center confirmed “This is certainly a valid point” in responding to Fr. Laisney who wrote:

“that baptism of blood is the most perfect form of baptism of desire. Therefore, if Saint Benedict Center admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood, then, implicitly, St. Benedict Center is admitting that there is, for unbaptized martyrs, a perfect baptism of desire.”

Really, ML, you should know better.

MarianLibrarian responded:

I think one can find a Church Father to quote in support of nearly anything. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing the testimony of the Fathers; but of the ones you posted only 2 of them specifically mentioned the baptism of blood replacing sacramental baptism. The rest of them I could've used to support the 'second baptism' position...

I let this sit for a month … time to put it to rest. It’s incredible when the obvious meaning of a particulates text, when viewed through a Feeneyite lens, can potentially mean the opposite of what it says.

Since I am not sure which of the 2 citations ML actually concedes has baptism of blood replacing sacramental baptism, I will briefly review each citation:

Tertullian said that baptism of blood “replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost". Crystal clear.

St. Cyprian of Carthage said Catechumens who suffer martyrdom are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Crystal clear.

Cyril of Jerusalem said “The only exception [to Baptism] is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.” Crystal clear.

St. John Chrysostom said that as in baptism, in martyrdom “there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood".

I’m suspect this one is not clear enough for ML, so I would just ask why Chrysostom would mention “taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul … just as those being baptized are washed in water” when he allegedly assumes that this had already been accomplished in the “perfect remedy” of water Baptism?

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe said no one can “enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], without the sacrament of baptism, except those who … in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ”. Crystal clear. In fact, if it is not clear enough, St. Fulgentis also taught:

“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, with the exception of those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who has not been converted from his sins through penance and faith, and freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, i.e. through baptism.” (On the Faith to Peter, 43, 73)

Yeah, that was real “ambiguous” as well.

So why ML questions 3 of the 5 citations remains a mystery that can only be resolved through Feeneyite logic ... so I’ll let her explain. While she’s at it, perhaps she can show us how many of the following testimonies of the Fathers don’t actually say what is clearly stated:

St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253) “Concerning the catechumen who is killed before baptism because of his witness: let him be buried among the martyrs. [...] When a catechumen is arrested because of his witness and killed before having been baptized, let him be buried with all the martyrs, because he has been baptized in his own blood.” (Canon 19: Concerning Catechumens)

Treatise, Anonymous Third Century Bishop: And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water,--as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied,--forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins. […]

St. Eusebius of Caesaria. (A.D. 341): After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had received. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, and after him the fourth was Hero. The former of these was as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of these were beheaded.

St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379): “And ere now there have been some who in their championship of the true religion have undergone the death for Christ’s sake, not in mere similitude [ie. in the sacrament of baptism; cf. Rom. 6:3], but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. This I write not to disparage the baptism by water.” (On the Spirit, 36)

“The fortieth martyr [of Sebaste] was baptized in Christ, not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood.” (Homily on the Forty Martyrs) [Note: The 40th martyr was a last minute convert and replacement who was divinely inspired to confess the faith and die a martyr]

Rufinus Tyrannius (A.D. 410): “It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced, ‘He shed thereout blood and water.’ This has a mystical meaning. […] Yet it might be understood of prefiguring the twofold grace of baptism, one that which is given by the baptism of water, the other that which is sought through martyrdom in the outpouring of blood, for both are called baptism.” (On The Creed 23)

St. Jerome (Doctor, A.D. 420): “ The One Baptism is also in water, in the Spirit and in the fire. Of which Our Lord also says: ‘I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized’ (Lk. 12:50) and elsewhere ‘with the baptism wherewith I am baptized you shall be baptized’ (Mk. 10:39.)” (In Eph. 4, PL 26, 496)

St. Augustine (Doctor, A.D. 430): “For whatever unbaptized person die confessing Christ [in martyrdom,] this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” made also an exception in their favour, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape [natural] death [leaving baptism to the last moment,] and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by professing Christ, rather than denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism [of water], in which was remitted even the most enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in those men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breaths where he listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure an hope of pardon!” (City of God against the Pagans, XIII, 7)

Pope St. Leo the Great (A.D. 461): “Those whom the wicked king removed from this world were brought to heaven by Christ, and He conferred the dignity of martyrdom on those upon whom He had not yet bestowed the redemption of his blood.” (In Epiph, 1,3)

St. Prosper of Aquitaine (A.D. 463): ”They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism.” (The Faith of Catholics, Msgr. Capel)

MarianLibrarian wrote:baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.

Sure; because you say so. It has been taught as both from the earliest centuries … and the saints and Fathers knew the difference.

The hard-core Feeneyite revision of history continues unabated.

Mike if your implying That baptism of blood automatically puts baptism of desire on in the same list of exceptions to sacramental Baptism then your lens needs cleaning.

You have indeed uncovered much evidence to affirm that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvivic to the previously unbaptised catechumen. But I think we can all agree that neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire are sacraments. Neither confer an indelible mark and neither are part of the seven sacraments.

We are then back again to the fruits of sacramental Baptism being made available by both these means while both are lacking in the full fruits of the sacrament at least on one level. While the evidence you present concerning what some saints (and one Doctor) held as their view point will be of value when the Church eventually deals with these issues infallibly, until then we must declare One God, One Faith, One Church, ONE BAPTISM.

columba wrote:Mike if your implying That baptism of blood automatically puts baptism of desire on in the same list of exceptions to sacramental Baptism then your lens needs cleaning.

Actually, I am not “implying” anything; but if you think there is no direct link between baptism of blood and baptism of desire (for it is charity that is at the heart of both) you are the one in need of serious lens cleaning. I would show you that direct link in the teaching of St. Aquinas, but I have this feeling it would be a wasted effort.

The purpose of this thread is to finally put to rest the false claim that the Fathers of the Church consistently held baptism of blood only as a “second baptism” and that baptism of blood as a “replacement” for the sacrament (by supplying its essential fruit of the One Baptism) is a more recent invention. The evidence speaks for itself – there is no denying it.

columba wrote:You have indeed uncovered much evidence to affirm that many of the saints and doctors favored baptism of blood as salvivic to the previously unbaptised catechumen. But I think we can all agree that neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire are sacraments. Neither confer an indelible mark and neither are part of the seven sacraments.

I have not “uncovered” anything; the evidence has been there all along for those who cared to look. But you are correct; baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not sacraments, they only supply the essential fruit of the sacrament. No new revelation there.

columba wrote:We are then back again to the fruits of sacramental Baptism being made available by both these means while both are lacking in the full fruits of the sacrament at least on one level. While the evidence you present concerning what some saints (and one Doctor) held as their view point will be of value when the Church eventually deals with these issues infallibly, until then we must declare One God, One Faith, One Church, ONE BAPTISM.

“One doctor”; do you really want to play this game as if the testimony of the Doctors is not consistent or does not represent a universal moral consensus? Who are you trying to kid?

Well, I sure am relieved that the Church will at least take into consideration the cited testimony of “some saints” and “one Doctor” when she finally convenes a Council convoked at the behest of the spiritual descendents of Fr. Feeney who have this deluded fantasy that the Church just might actually "condemn" baptism of blood and baptism of desire and overturn what she has taught through her authentic ordinary magisterium since at least the Council of Trent. Anyone who holds such a fantasy lives in la-la land and suffers from an affliction for which there is no known human cure.

The Church has already “dealt” with the issue through her authentic ordinary Magisterium and has been “dealing” with it most magisterially since the Council of Trent.

Stop perpetuating the myth that there exists some sort of dilemma and “debate” in the Church and her theologians over baptism of blood and baptism of desire that needs to be “settled” through a future Council or dogmatic definition; there is no debate and there never has been, notwithstanding some wacky internet forums (that was for Roguejim) and the vestiges of resistance from the spiritual dependents of Fr. Feeney who did not reverse his position and challenge these long-established doctrines until 1952. Even the St. Benedict Center article (by Raymond Karam) that became the doctrinal centerpiece for the 1949 intervention of the Holy Office recognized the traditions of baptism of blood and baptism of desire and their respective places as legitimate doctrines.

That “one level” your refer to is the level that equips one for salvation by transmitting the merit and fruit of the Redeemer in the translation of the impious, under the new law of grace, as a son of God and heir to the kingdom.

There are two Catechisms of the universal Roman Church you should read on the subject of Baptism, one is the Catechism of the Council of Trent; the other is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If I am not mistaken, you will find the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire spelled out rather clearly and consistently in each. If you need any help finding these relevant passages, or the other magisterial and authentic teachings confirming this doctrine, let me know and I’ll give you chapter and verse.

The Church already declares “One God, One Faith, One Church, ONE BAPTISM” and baptism of blood and baptism of desire do not change this declaration in the least. Read the recommended Catechisms and you’ll discover this truth. In fact, already in the 3rd century this “understanding” is clearly spelled out (see below) in the lengthy treatise of a Bishop (Treatise Against Re-baptism), which said in part:

“For John distinguished, and said that he indeed baptized in water, but that one should come who would baptize in the Holy Ghost, by the grace and power of God; and they are so by the Spirit’s bestowal and operation of hidden results. Moreover, they are so no less in the [sacramental] baptism of the Spirit and of water. They are so, besides, also in the baptism of every one in his own proper blood, even as the Holy Scriptures declare to us, from which we shall adduce evident proofs throughout each individual instance of those things which we shall narrate. […]

“And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: “And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith.” And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water,--as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied,--forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins. […]

“And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word [a catechumen], and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed [in martyrdom], and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or indeed wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;” because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word [a catechumen] or a believer [baptized], so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess; because the Lord, by confessing him, in turn Himself graces his confessor before his Father with the glory of his martyrdom, as he promised. But this assuredly ought not to be taken too liberally, as if it could be stretched to such a point as that any heretic can confess the name of Christ who not withstanding [by any heresy] denies Christ Himself. [...]

“As this word “whosoever,” also in the sentence of confession, most fully shows us that no condition of the confessor himself can stand in the way, although he may have been before [prior to his martyrdom] a denier, or a heretic, or a hearer, or one who is beginning to hear, who has not yet been baptized or [already previously] converted from heresy to the truth of the faith, or one who has departed from the Church and has afterwards returned, and then when he returned, before the bishop’s hands could be laid upon him, being apprehended, should be compelled to confess Christ before men; even as to one who again denies Christ, no special ancient dignity can be effectual to him for salvation. For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged, all those things which he has previously done being wiped away and obliterated. In martyrdom there is so great a change of things in a moment of time, that in a very rapid case all things may be changed. On which principle also, that heretic who, by confessing Christ’s name, is put to death, can subsequently correct nothing. […]

“For what was said by the Lord, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptism, but demonstrates that there is a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers [i.e. baptised], the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, “From his belly flowed rivers of living water;” which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord’s passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier’s spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe on Him: “But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” [/color]And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there [virtually] two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind [i.e. giving the Spirit], although the baptism of each kind ought to be one [i.e. not repeated], as we have more fully spoken.

“And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;” --that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men’s own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was “poured out” [cf. Acts 2:17-18; 10:45] by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. […] Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. […]

“From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.” (Treatise Against Re-baptism, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18)

Gee, columba, one gets the impression that this 3rd century Bishop speaks with authority and tradition, and as if he actually knows what he’s talking about!

Oh, wait, that’s just “one Bishop” and I’m sure the “future Council” (convened at the request of Feeneyites) will also take into consideration all of those other Bishops throughout the ages who taught against baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Perhaps you can help the Vatican in its preparation for the next Council by compiling the testimony of the Bishops, Saints, Doctors and Theologians since the Council of Trent who spoke out against baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Good luck with that, and would you mind sharing that testimony with the forum?

Actually, in my "fantasy Council", the specious notion that the Justification defined by Trent through "the desire thereof" is a "non-fulfilled" and non-salvific form of justification under the new law of grace that cannot "truly" make one an heir to the kingdom -- would be condemned as heretical.

As it is, it is not on the agenda of the Vatican since not a single theologian teaches such a strange doctrine; we can find it only in the private musings of those who are said to represent the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center.

Mike,

It is at least certain that the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood, but such does nothing to change the fact that it's an absurdity, which Saint Augustine, certainly one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, came to recognize late in his life. We're back to "assuming/proving a negative" again, and that's just silly. We all agree that someone who had the Catholic Faith and who ended his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" if he/she was martyred without Baptism would go straight to Paradise. Such has never been in dispute.

You and most of the modern Church claim that someone can come to final perseverance and die in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" without knowing that fact (that is, never having been consciously aware of it), and such is a denial of human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief.

Parts of your post, MRyan, remind me of a conversation I had a long time ago with a Protestant... we were discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary and she kept insisting that the Bible was "crystal clear" on this matter. After all the Gospel specifically says that Joseph knew Mary not "until" she bore Jesus. I tried to explain to her that the word "until" does not mean "and then it happened", to no avail. She accused me of arguing against common sense.

MRyan wrote:I’m suspect this one is not clear enough for ML, so I would just ask why Chrysostom would mention “taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul … just as those being baptized are washed in water” when he allegedly assumes that this had already been accomplished in the “perfect remedy” of water Baptism?

Could not one also describe the Sacrament of Confession as a "taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul"? You assume that because St. John Chrysostom compares the remission of sins in martyrdom to baptism that this means the martyr's death has replaced sacramental baptism... in this context, one has to do a lot of reading between the lines to posit martyrdom as a replacement for sacramental baptism. The text itself doesn't demand it.

MRyan wrote:So why ML questions 3 of the 5 citations remains a mystery that can only be resolved through Feeneyite logic ... so I’ll let her explain. While she’s at it, perhaps she can show us how many of the following testimonies of the Fathers don’t actually say what is clearly stated

Nice try. I never claimed 'the following testimonies of the Fathers don't actually say...' anything, since this is the first time you are bringing it to the discussion. Great debating tactic though... to pretend someone said something you pulled out of thin air and then attack it.
Wait... doesn't that have something to do with a man and some straw?

MRyan wrote:Sure; because you say so. It has been taught as both from the earliest centuries … and the saints and Fathers knew the difference.

The hard-core Feeneyite revision of history continues unabated.

All this straw is making this place look like a barn!

All kidding aside, I am at least glad you do recognize that martyrdom has been taught as a second baptism by the Fathers.

However my assertion (which you even quoted) was that the Church has consistently taught martyrdom as a second baptism until recently:

MarianLibrarian wrote:baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.

MarianLibrarian wrote:Parts of your post, MRyan, remind me of a conversation I had a long time ago with a Protestant... we were discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary and she kept insisting that the Bible was "crystal clear" on this matter. After all the Gospel specifically says that Joseph knew Mary not "until" she bore Jesus. I tried to explain to her that the word "until" does not mean "and then it happened", to no avail. She accused me of arguing against common sense.

MRyan wrote:I’m suspect this one is not clear enough for ML, so I would just ask why Chrysostom would mention “taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul … just as those being baptized are washed in water” when he allegedly assumes that this had already been accomplished in the “perfect remedy” of water Baptism?

Could not one also describe the Sacrament of Confession as a "taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul"? You assume that because St. John Chrysostom compares the remission of sins in martyrdom to baptism that this means the martyr's death has replaced sacramental baptism... in this context, one has to do a lot of reading between the lines to posit martyrdom as a replacement for sacramental baptism. The text itself doesn't demand it.

Speaking of déjà vu in speaking with a Protestant, I get that feeling all the time.

St. John Chrysostom was talking about martyrdom being just like water baptism in its taking “away of sins” AND in its “wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul”, which strongly suggests more than just the remission of sins as we see in the sacrament of Penance, and a complete cleansing and purification of the soul such that not a single stain remains ... not even the temporal punishments due to venial sins. Yeah, real “stretch”, that. Confession is known also as a “laborious kind of Baptism”, but is not generally referred to as the forgiveness of sins AND a “wonderful and marvelous cleansing” as is more typically reserved for that “wonderful and marvelous” regeneration found in Baptism and in martyrdom.

Having said that, it is entirely possible that St. Chrysostom was referring to the “wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul” as a “second baptism” for, according to Jurgens, he was addressing the martyrdom of Lucien, a Catholic priest, which might place his words in the context of a second baptism as you suggest. So let me give you that one … and concede that only 4 of the 5 citations in my original post, and 14 of 15 total, are quite clear in affirming martyrdom as a replacement or an exception to the sacrament.

In fact, you said you could make the case for three of the five citations supporting “the 'second baptism' position...”, and you have failed to do so, while suggesting that I argue like a Protestant.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:So why ML questions 3 of the 5 citations remains a mystery that can only be resolved through Feeneyite logic ... so I’ll let her explain. While she’s at it, perhaps she can show us how many of the following testimonies of the Fathers don’t actually say what is clearly stated

Nice try. I never claimed 'the following testimonies of the Fathers don't actually say...' anything, since this is the first time you are bringing it to the discussion. Great debating tactic though... to pretend someone said something you pulled out of thin air and then attack it.

Wait... doesn't that have something to do with a man and some straw?

Nice try as you attempt to distance yourself from what you actually said, which was this:

“baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism. … I think one can find a Church Father to quote in support of nearly anything. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing the testimony of the Fathers; but of the ones you posted only 2 of them specifically mentioned the baptism of blood replacing sacramental baptism. The rest of them I could've used to support the 'second baptism' position...”

First, you can’t demonstrate how three of the original five citations can be read as supporting the “second baptism” position; second, you said that baptism of blood has until only recently been considered by the Church as a “second baptism” (ha, ha, ha; gotcha, she says, the Church is not the the Church Fathers), and I’ll address this duplicity in just a moment; and third, when you say “one can find a Church Father to quote in support of nearly anything” you clearly imply by this that any testimony that I bring forth (you are “not dismissing”, of course) can be read to support the second baptism position, especially since, as you say, baptism of blood has until only recently been understood by the Church as a second baptism, and not as a replacement for the sacrament.

Your gratuitous assertions are growing a bit stale.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:Sure; because you say so. It has been taught as both from the earliest centuries … and the saints and Fathers knew the difference.

The hard-core Feeneyite revision of history continues unabated.

All this straw is making this place look like a barn!

All kidding aside, I am at least glad you do recognize that martyrdom has been taught as a second baptism by the Fathers.

However my assertion (which you even quoted) was that the Church has consistently taught martyrdom as a second baptism until recently:

MarianLibrarian wrote:baptism of blood, as consistently taught by the Church has (until recently) been understood as a second baptism-- the baptism of a martyr. Not as a replacement for sacramental baptism.

All kidding aside, you employ the classic logical fallacy by suggesting that because baptism of blood is also known as a “second baptism”, and because we can bring forth Fathers to say whatever we want them to say, they can be read generally as supporting a “second baptism” and not necessarily as the Church teaches it today, not that you would "dismiss" their testimony to the contrary, or anything.

However, your duplicity in all of this is really quite revealing; though I should have seen it coming since you employed the same tactic in questioning the authenticity of the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. Let me guess, “gee, I never said the Fathers did not consistently taught martyrdom as a second baptism; oh no, I said the Church has consistently taught martyrdom as a second baptism, until recently; thereby implying that the common consensus of the Fathers, the saints and the theologians throughout the ages is NOT the same thing as saying the Church has consistently taught the same doctrine; at least not “officially”.

In fact, when the CCC teaches that the Church has always held the firm conviction that martyrdom brings about the salvific effects of Baptism, you strongly suggest that the Church is wrong; that she does not know what she is talking about since she has only until just recently “taught” martyrdom as a replacement for the sacrament.

And of course, we both know what you mean by “the Church” when you say she has only recently taught baptism of blood as being salvific. You mean by this that she has never spelled it out in her official magisterial declarations (preferably in Encyclicals since these are supposed to carry more inherent authority than Catechisms) other than approved catechisms and in her liturgical books which clearly suggest the Church venerates certain saints who are believed to have been martyred without the sacrament.

And we know, from what you appear to be suggesting, that making reference to what the Church teaches in her official magisterial declarations is not the exact same thing as making reference to that which she says she has always held, so let’s dismiss the testimony of the Fathers, which you would never do, by milking this irrelevant distinction to death and mock MRyan for debating like a protestant and for creating a “straw-man”.

If your entire argument hinges on your belief that “the Church” has never taught baptism of blood as more than a "second baptism" until just recently; well good for you and good luck peddling that piece of propaganda; but please try and stay on topic next time you decide to intervene with your gratuitous assertions you can't even find the time to support.

And to think this whole debate revolves around your assertion that the Church has never, until recently, “taught” baptism of blood as a replacement for the sacrament; no, she only affirms that she has always “held” the doctrine with strong conviction, and the two are NOT the same, isn’t that right, MarianLibrarian?

You are a peach. And you talk to me of straw-men?

I wrote:

In fact, when the CCC teaches that the Church has always held the firm conviction that martyrdom brings about the salvific effects of Baptism, you strongly suggest that the Church is wrong; that she does not know what she is talking about since she has only until just recently “taught” martyrdom as a replacement for the sacrament.

Please amend the last to read "since she has only just recently 'taught' martyrdom as a replacement for the sacrament."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

It is at least certain that the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood, but such does nothing to change the fact that it's an absurdity, which Saint Augustine, certainly one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, came to recognize late in his life. We're back to "assuming/proving a negative" again, and that's just silly. We all agree that someone who had the Catholic Faith and who ended his/her life in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" if he/she was martyred without Baptism would go straight to Paradise. Such has never been in dispute.

You and most of the modern Church claim that someone can come to final perseverance and die in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" without knowing that fact (that is, never having been consciously aware of it), and such is a denial of human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief.

Let me get this straight. It is at least “certain” that “the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood”, but this universal teaching of the Fathers is “absurd”; after all, you can provide at least two scholars who insist that St. Augustine changed his mind, though the rest of the Fathers, to include the greatest Doctor of them all, St. Aquinas, and Doctors such as Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori seemed to have missed this little “fact”. In fact, St. Aquinas seemed to have been very familiar with everything St. Augustine wrote, but I guess he was not of the same scholastic pedigree as your Fr. Rahner.

So it is also “absurd” when the Church teaches that she has always held baptism of blood (the same teaching of the universal Fathers) with firm conviction. And "We all agree that someone who had the Catholic Faith and who ended his/her life in the ‘bosom and unity of the Catholic Church’ if he/she was martyred without Baptism would go straight to Paradise. Such has never been in dispute” … but the doctrine itself, and the idea of it ever happening is “ABSURD”.

How can you say such things with a straight face, or are you playing us for fools?

Btw, you should check with your mother ship at the St. Benedict Center before saying such things as "never in dispute" since the "official" position would seem to "dispute" the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood by denying that it can make one a "true" heir to kingdom since it can find its salvific fulfillment only in the sacrament.

And do you even realize that when you say "We all believe" that baptism of blood is salvific (but "absurd"), that the alleged doctrine that holds that "every one of the elect is predestined by God to water Baptism" can only be an unsubstantiated opinion, for both propositions cannot both be true? If baptism of blood is possible, then not every soul is necessarily predestined to water Baptism ... period.

Aren’t you the same person who said you could care less what all of the theologians taught and what the ordinary Magisterium teaches when those teachings are allegedly opposed to the dogmas handed down for your personal safekeeping; yet here you are selling the idea that St. Augustine definitely changed his position on baptism of blood and baptism of desire and we are supposed to take that to the bank in support of your “baptism of blood is absurd” hypothesis?

In fact, you said, baptism of blood and baptism of desire might even be revealed truths from the Deposit of Faith; making you the first Catholic on record to have ever characterized a truth of divine revelation as “absurd”.

And here you are once again spouting your “denial of human free will” mantra, while conveniently ignoring my previous replies that clearly debunked such a specious notion. The very fact that implicit desire is implicit in an act of explicit faith and intention, both of which are free acts of the will, completely destroys your ridiculous theory.

In other words, if one is capable of belief and a desire to do the will of God in all things, then one is also capable of unbelief and a lack of desire to do the will of God, which would include by necessity a non (or false) desire for baptism and to enter the Church. One cannot at one and the same time set his will against the will of God while having a true desire, explicit or implicit (an act of free will), for baptism and to enter the Church.

What is so difficult about this that you cannot seem to grasp such a simple truth?

If baptism of blood is possible, then not every soul is necessarily predestined to water Baptism ... period.

You need to qualify that: it is not logically necessary, or necessary as a necessity of means. But in may be necessary as a matter of fact.

It is possible for every man to do the right thing and overcome sin in every instance, but yet everyone sins. What is possible may not happen, but that doesn't make it impossible - it still remains a true possibility.

God predestines only some men to salvation (and this predestination is necessary for them to be saved) despite the fact that he equips all men with what is necessary to avoid sin.

In other words, despite the fact that all men have the power to avoid sin (sufficient grace) God must provide another efficacious grace beyond that to wipe out the effects of the sins men commit so that anyone can be saved.

The possibility of baptism by blood doesn't preclude a scenario where all of the elect in fact receive baptism in water.

tornpage wrote:

If baptism of blood is possible, then not every soul is necessarily predestined to water Baptism ... period.

You need to qualify that: it is not logically necessary, or necessary as a necessity of means. But in may be necessary as a matter of fact.

It is possible for every man to do the right thing and overcome sin in every instance, but yet everyone sins. What is possible may not happen, but that doesn't make it impossible - it still remains a true possibility.

God predestines only some men to salvation (and this predestination is necessary for them to be saved) despite the fact that he equips all men with what is necessary to avoid sin.

In other words, despite the fact that all men have the power to avoid sin (sufficient grace) God must provide another efficacious grace beyond that to wipe out the effects of the sins men commit so that anyone can be saved.

The possibility of baptism by blood doesn't preclude a scenario where all of the elect in fact receive baptism in water.

I don’t think it requires qualification; it is a matter of simple logic. If the scenario you describe is a “necessity of fact”, but not one of logic or means, what’s the point? It is an “opinion of fact”, nothing more. Is baptism of water necessary for those who receive baptism of blood, or isn’t it? If it is, then baptism of blood cannot be efficacious for salvation. If it isn’t, then baptism of blood is efficacious without water baptism. The very definition of baptism of blood presupposes salvation without water baptism, so what difference does it make that someone believes God will still provide the sacrament as a “necessity of fact” (whatever that means)?

It would appear you are trying to extend Aquinas's “necessity of infallibility” for explicit faith to water baptism; but if you are, you are headed upstream without a paddle because I do not know of a single theologian who ever proposed such an idea while also teaching baptism of blood. If baptism of blood is efficacious for salvation, “necessity of infallibility” does not enter into the picture.

I have no idea where you are going with your sufficient but insufficient grace vs an infallibly efficacious grace analogy … either baptism of blood is efficacious for salvation, or it isn’t. If it is, it is infallibly efficacious without water baptism … end of story.

Yes, I am using "necessity" in the sense of a "necessity of infallibility."

It may not be "necessary" that all men have an explicit faith in Christ to be saved as a necessity of means, but it may very well be that all men in fact who are saved after Christ's advent come to an explicit faith in Christ before death. St. Aquinas believed this, as you well know.

If God wills that all men who are saved after the advent of Christ come to an explicit faith in Him before death, then one may describe such faith as "necessary," since all who are saved have it. I am not using the term theologically. In fact, I know you are familiar with the term, "necessity of infallibility."

The only way you can say that water baptism does not have a similar necessity to explicit faith (per the belief of St. Aquinas and the above example) is if there are people who have in fact been saved without water baptism (and by baptism of blood) after the establishment of water baptism as a necessary means of salvation.

If all of the elect since the advent of Christ have in fact been baptized in water, then water baptism can be described as having the same "necessity" as explicit faith according to St. Aquinas.

If the scenario you describe is a “necessity of fact”, but not one of logic or means, what’s the point?

God may will it. The same question could be posed to explicit faith in Christ. Too bad you can't ask St. Aquinas.

tornpage wrote:God may will it. The same question could be posed to explicit faith in Christ. Too bad you can't ask St. Aquinas.

It's all irrelevant. If you accept Cantate Domino as being infallible, then you must understand the dogma as it was defined by the Fathers at the Council of Florence, per Vatican I. Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's "blood for the Name of Christ") but one must die in the "bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" to have everlasting life. Of course, Mike and most (but not all) of the modern Church would claim that one could through implicitum votum be joined to the Church in the absence of sacramental Baptism in Water. It is my belief that such a view denies human free will, because how could such an individual ever become an apostate, heretic, or schismatic? In other words, how does one get rid of his/her "implicit desire" to be a Catholic?

Just as there are no unconscious traitors so there are no unconscious apostates, heretics, and/or schismatics. Being baptized outside the canonical boundaries of the Church may lessen one's culpability, but it does not eliminate it. Just because someone is born as a native Russian citizen does not give that person "the right" to spy on the United States, nor does it prevent him/her from getting arrested for having done so. Still, we are willing to trade spies to get our own back, which proves that the culpability of a Russian spy is less than that of a native American who does the exact same crime.

Besides, does any of this matter? We believe in the Primary of the Pope, even if he does not, correct?! It's an immutable truth of the Faith, and even if the Pope would deny such does nothing to change the fact that 2+2 = 4 and does nothing to change the obligation on the part of human beings everywhere to believe in that timeless, unchanging truth. So, let's proclaim the Truth, in charity, to Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc. alike.

In the end, it is Christ who will Judge. As for me, I may have to beg forgiveness from the Righteous Judge, "Oh Lord, I am so sorry for having taken your words literally and those solemn words of your Popes."

Jehanne wrote:

tornpage wrote:God may will it. The same question could be posed to explicit faith in Christ. Too bad you can't ask St. Aquinas.

It's all irrelevant. If you accept Cantate Domino as being infallible, then you must understand the dogma as it was defined by the Fathers at the Council of Florence, per Vatican I. Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's "blood for the Name of Christ") but one must die in the "bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" to have everlasting life. Of course, Mike and most (but not all) of the modern Church would claim that one could through implicitum votum be joined to the Church in the absence of sacramental Baptism in Water. It is my belief that such a view denies human free will, because how could such an individual ever become an apostate, heretic, or schismatic? In other words, how does one get rid of his/her "implicit desire" to be a Catholic?

And this from the same person who suggests that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are divinely revealed (but absurd) truths. The insanity never ends.

Jehanne, pay attention: “Perfect charity” presupposes being united to Christ through those very same bonds of faith and charity; which means unity with His Mystical Body is effected when perfect charity is present. As the “modern” 1949 Holy Office taught and as Fr. Fenton wrote: “… no will or desire of entering the Church can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation unless it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.”

The heretic who willfully separates himself from the Church is incapable of “perfect charity”, or charity has no meaning. Is there something here you do not understand? Obviously, there is since you keep repeating your “denial of free will” mantra while deliberately ignoring my responses. You are not capable of reasoned discourse.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.”

Jehanne said: To be a member of Christ, “Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's ‘blood for the Name of Christ’)”.

Jehanne wrote:In the end, it is Christ who will Judge. As for me, I may have to beg forgiveness from the Righteous Judge, "Oh Lord, I am so sorry for having taken your words literally and those solemn words of your Popes."

Good luck with that.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (Die Verbum §10; cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Humani Generis," Aug. 12, 1950: A.A.S. 42 {1950} pp. 568-69: Denzinger 2314 {3886}.)

Humani Generis:

For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority … Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. .. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs … is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers … The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients …

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

MRyan wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.”

Sure, and he goes on, infallibly, to declare that

“no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

You are misrepresenting my views, something that you appear to enjoy doing to we "Feeneyites." I never claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood was an "absurd" doctrine. What I did claim is absurd is the suggestion that there are people in Heaven who have died without sacramental Baptism, whether they have been martyred or not. To assert such a position, even if it is true, would be equivalent to "asserting a negative," that is, that something did not happen to an individual, in this case, sacramental Baptism in Water, and to assert that there are people in Paradise who have died without Baptism is to assert something that is impossible to prove, at least in this life. The issue is not are there individuals in Heaven (or on their way there) who have died without Baptism, but can we, as Catholics, actually know such a fact, even if it is true. I simply believe that the One and Triune God will predestine His elect, without exception, to Sacramental Baptism in Water. You may, of course, disagree, but unless you can demonstrate my view to be false and/or heretical, I am feel to hold it, and the Church has never required me to profess otherwise. I hold to it because it makes complete sense to me; maybe not to you, and that is fine. I do not see my beliefs as being in contradiction to the views of Saints Thomas and Augustine or any other Father for that matter.

I can only assume that you do not believe that someone can be an unconscious traitor, bank robber, or rapist. While I agree that it is possible to murder someone in a "waking dream," I find it impossible to believe that you or anyone else could rob a bank while "sleep walking." And yet, you would have us believe that someone could be an unconscious apostate, heretic, or schismatic. If an Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, etc. is capable of making a conscious, deliberate decision to rob a bank, I do not see how they could not make a conscious decision to reject Christ and His Church. So, yes, I think that implicitum votum is heretical and absurd, because either it is a denial of human free will and/or the Providence and Sovereignty of the One and Triune God in bringing His Revelation and Sacraments to His elect.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.” [condemned]

Jehanne said: To be a member of Christ, “Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's ‘blood for the Name of Christ’)”.

Sure, and he goes on, infallibly, to declare that

“no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

I see, now you pick and choose which infallible words you will “literally” accept, and which ones you will impose an understanding of your own choosing, even on the literal words of a dogmatic definition: Condemned: “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.”

Do you take the words literally? Of course not; you read them in light of your own private interpretation of a non-defining section of a Papal Bull.

In other words, you say you take the words of an infallible non-defining declaration (“… unless he remain …”) literally (your fallible and erroneous understanding), while refusing to accept the literal meaning of the Council of Basel’s solemn ex cathedra dogmatic definition (an ex cathedra condemnation); even when your private “literal” understanding of a non-defining dogmatic prescription on the shedding of one’s blood is opposed to that of the infallible living Magisterium which clearly teaches that those who shed their blood for Christ with the proper faith, intention and desire are already united to Christ by that very fact, even without water baptism.

Rather then take the words of the condemnatory ex cathedra definition literally (said positively: that to be a member of Christ no other union is necessary for those who are united to Christ in the bond of perfect charity), you take the opposite understanding by saying that some other union [formal membership] is necessary for those who are already united to Christ in perfect charity, and force a meaning that has NEVER been held by the Church which clearly teaches with Cantate Domino that those who shed their blood for Christ but have not “remained” in the Church, and have left her through heresy, apostasy or schism, cannot benefit; meaning, as the Church understands it, that those who have never been formally united to the Church through no fault of their own, but are united to her in faith, desire and intention are NOT included in the prescription “unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

I asked columba a while back to tell me if that particular section of Cantate Domino on the shedding of blood for Christ is a solemn ex cathedra dogmatic definition, and he simply refuses to answer the question while acting, like you, as if it is, and acting as if the Church can only understand it in the sense he gives it … when it is clear that the Church does not, and it is clear that it is not a solemnly defined dogma, but an attendant explanation of a dogma that is open to greater explication and explanation by the living teaching authority of the Church.

You want to play the same game and have the audacity to tell me that we do not need a living magisterium to authentically interpret her dogmatic prescriptions? The fact that neither you nor columba seem to know the difference between a solemn ex cathedra definition and an infallible non-defining dogmatic declaration tells us all we need to know about your arrogant thumbing of your nose at the magisterium by telling her that you are capable enough of authentically interpreting her dogmatic declarations, and that you do not need her living authority to do so; especially when you suggest that she has erred while doing do. As I said, good luck with that.

And you simply refuse to answer how someone with Catholic faith, charity and intention who has never been formally joined to the Church is, by dogmatic “literal” necessity, included in the prescription against those who have not remained in the Church.

Pharisee and hypocrite, heal thyself.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.”

Sure, and he goes on, infallibly, to declare that

“no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

You are misrepresenting my views, something that you appear to enjoy doing to we "Feeneyites."

Sure I am; just like I "misrepresented" your "view" when you said that the doctrine that holds that any implicit desire for baptism or to enter the Church that does not become explicit before death is heresy.

I only have to repeat your words verbatim and I am accused of "misrepresentation".

Jehanne wrote:I never claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood was an "absurd" doctrine.

Really? You wrote:

It is at least certain that the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood, but such does nothing to change the fact that it's an absurdity, which Saint Augustine, certainly one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, came to recognize late in his life.

So “it” (the universal doctrine of baptism of blood as taught by the Fathers) is an “absurdity”, the same alleged “absurdity” that St. Augustine allegedly came to recognize; but I am misrepresenting your views because what you really mean to say is that “it” (baptism of blood) is not an “absurdity” per se; oh no, what is “absurd” is the suggestion that the doctrine might actually exist in the real world and might actually effect what it teaches – salvation through baptism of blood without the sacrament. In other words, what is “absurd” is the notion that the doctrine might actually be real and is not just some meaningless “null set” that has never and will never actually happen[ed].

So, when you say “the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood, but such does nothing to change the fact that it's an absurdity”, we are to understand in Jehannian logic that only the idea of what the doctrine clearly suggests, that there might actually be¸ or may be, “people in Heaven who have died without sacramental Baptism, whether they have been martyred or not” is the true “absurdity”.

Got it, and your specious explanations and false distinctions are an absurdity and as insulting to the Fathers as they are to anyone with a Catholic sensus fidelium.

And I suppose you never actually suggested that the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire might form a part of divine revelation; though if I quote you verbatim, I will be accused once again of misrepresenting what you say; you know, like the idea that a divinely revealed truth might actually be real (the truth it proclaims might actually exist in reality) is "absurd".

You've been sniffing the "de facto/de jure" glue for too long.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:You are misrepresenting my views, something that you appear to enjoy doing to we "Feeneyites."

Sure I am; just like I "misrepresented" your "view" when you said that the doctrine that holds that any implicit desire for baptism or to enter the Church that does not become explicit before death is heresy.

I only have to repeat your words verbatim and I am accused of "misrepresentation".

Jehanne wrote:I never claimed that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood was an "absurd" doctrine.

Really? You wrote:

It is at least certain that the Fathers universally taught Baptism of Blood, but such does nothing to change the fact that it's an absurdity, which Saint Augustine, certainly one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, came to recognize late in his life.

So “it” (the universal doctrine of baptism of blood as taught by the Fathers) is an “absurdity”, the same alleged “absurdity” that St. Augustine allegedly came to recognize; but I am misrepresenting your views because what you really mean to say is that “it” (baptism of blood) is not an “absurdity” per se; oh no, what is “absurd” is the suggestion that the doctrine might actually exist in the real world and might actually effect what it teaches – salvation through baptism of blood without the sacrament. In other words, what is “absurd” is the notion that the doctrine might actually be real and is not just some meaningless “null set” that has never and will never actually happen[ed].

Mike,

I have always admitted the possibility that there are individuals in Paradise who have died without Baptism. What is an absurdity is the assertion that Baptism of Blood and/or Desire actually has happened in the complete absence of sacramental Baptism of Water, and I do not see any Father and/or Doctor ever asserting that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood has, in fact, ever happened, and that's the absurdity, the assertion that such not only can happen but that it does happen. How could one (you) ever prove something like that, that is, that someone was never Baptized, even if such occurred in that person's infancy??

As for your parsing of Cantate Domino, as to what was infallible and what was not, the Fathers at Florece were quoting Saint Fulgentius, who died in 533 AD:

"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels." (To Peter on the Faith)

So, clearly, Cantate Domino is infallible, if only by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As for Florence condemning the proposition "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," the words of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc") summed-up things nicely:

"About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter."

In all the conversations that we have had on this board, what objection do you have to the fact of we "Feeneyites" telling (if only "implicitly") Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Orthodoxs, atheists, agnostics, etc. that they need to convert to the One True Faith and the One True Church, "outside which no one at all is saved"?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.” [condemned]

Jehanne said: To be a member of Christ, “Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's ‘blood for the Name of Christ’)”.

Sure, and he goes on, infallibly, to declare that

“no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

I see, now you pick and choose which infallible words you will “literally” accept, and which ones you will impose an understanding of your own choosing, even on the literal words of a dogmatic definition: Condemned: “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.”

Do you take the words literally? Of course not; you read them in light of your own private interpretation of a non-defining section of a Papal Bull.

In other words, you say you take the words of an infallible non-defining declaration (“… unless he remain …”) literally (your fallible and erroneous understanding), while refusing to accept the literal meaning of the Council of Basel’s solemn ex cathedra dogmatic definition (an ex cathedra condemnation); even when your private “literal” understanding of a non-defining dogmatic prescription on the shedding of one’s blood is opposed to that of the infallible living Magisterium which clearly teaches that those who shed their blood for Christ

You're interpreting by assuming perfect charity can exist outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. If we are to understand this you have separated the divine gifts of Faith Hope and Charity which we are taught to receive in the Sacrament of Baptism:

We have the dogmatic letter to Flavian:


"For there are
three who give testimony—Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other
words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN
INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE
OTHERS.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm#1

Plus sin can't be forgiven outside the Church and you aint a member if
you're not permitted to receive any of the other sacraments. Only the
sacramental seal makes one eligible.


Plus the same council says that faith is necessary too:

"Sixthly, a compendious rule of the faith of most blessed Athanasius [Creed], which begins: Whoever wills to be saved etc.

[Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, which
except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will
perish eternally....]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm
You are picking and choosing like you accuse others.

cowboy wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, … namely the following:

“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.” [condemned]

Jehanne said: To be a member of Christ, “Even perfect charity is not sufficient (shedding one's ‘blood for the Name of Christ’)”.

Sure, and he goes on, infallibly, to declare that

“no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

I see, now you pick and choose which infallible words you will “literally” accept, and which ones you will impose an understanding of your own choosing, even on the literal words of a dogmatic definition: Condemned: “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.”

Do you take the words literally? Of course not; you read them in light of your own private interpretation of a non-defining section of a Papal Bull.

In other words, you say you take the words of an infallible non-defining declaration (“… unless he remain …”) literally (your fallible and erroneous understanding), while refusing to accept the literal meaning of the Council of Basel’s solemn ex cathedra dogmatic definition (an ex cathedra condemnation); even when your private “literal” understanding of a non-defining dogmatic prescription on the shedding of one’s blood is opposed to that of the infallible living Magisterium which clearly teaches that those who shed their blood for Christ

You're interpreting by assuming perfect charity can exist outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. If we are to understand this you have separated the divine gifts of Faith Hope and Charity which we are taught to receive in the Sacrament of Baptism:

I am not “interpreting” or “assuming” anything, but only repeating what the Doctors, the Saints, the theologians and the infallible Magisterium teaches, and has always taught.

You, on the other hand, are repeating the heterodox private opinion of a miniscule handful of lay quacks whose training in theology is non-existent. You simply dismiss the testimony of the Doctors and the universal consensus of the theologians when they do not conform to your novel, heretical and legalistic system of grace and salvation.

Here is someone else who “interpreted” the Church’s tradition and magisterial doctrine “by assuming perfect charity can exist outside of the Sacrament of Baptism”:

Pope Pius XII: “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.” (Allocution to midwives, 1951)

Pope Pius XII speaks of this act of love in Mystici Corporis Christi:

73. But if the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in His Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. If even in the natural order the love of friendship is something supremely noble, what shall we say of that supernatural love, which God infuses in our hearts? "God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him." The effect of this charity - such would seem to be God's law - is to compel Him to enter into our loving hearts to return love for love, as He said: "If anyone love me..., my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him." Charity then, more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ.

Pope Pius XII is simply repeating an established doctrine of the Church that is clearly presented by at least seven Doctors and by the universal consensus of saints and theologians (beginning with St. Cyprian); it is clearly and dogmatically taught in Trent, Session, 6, Chapters 4 and in Session 7, Canon 4; it is clearly presented in the Catechism of the Council of Trent; it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent II in the Letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop of Cremora and by Pope Innocent III in his Letter “Debitum pastoralis oficii” to the Bishop of Metz; it is clearly presented in Canon Law (1917 and 1983) as well as in the Roman Ritual of Pope Paul V; it is clearly presented by Pope St. Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum and by Pope St. Pius X in his Catechism of Christian Doctrine; it is clearly presented in the Holy Office Letter of 1949; it is clearly presented in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium and in the conciliar Decree Ad Gentes, and it is clearly presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium.

We could of course go through the entire litany of Fathers, saints, theologians and Doctors, to include the Father of the Church, St. Bernard of Clarivaux; the “Common” and the “Angelic Doctor”, St. Thomas Aquinas; and Doctors and Saints Alphonsus Liguori and Robert Bellarmine; but I realize it is futile to present universal testimony of the Fathers and Doctors to an “expert” who is not willing to have his novel heterodoxy moderated by tradition and the Magisterium, and least of all by Rome since he is not in fact serving any truth but his own. In the end, “it is ironic that making the pastoral Magisterium of the Hierarchy {especially that of the chief pastor} subject to the Magisterium of the Experts involves exactly the kind of modernist assumption that Feeneyites have declared themselves opposed to.”

As St. and Doctor Alphonsus Liguori taught:

To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated. (Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent)

In the same commentary on the Works of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

Who can deny it? Cowboy and his merry band of rigorist savants whose idea of a theology manual and the Magisterium is that which can be found in the mad rantings emanating from a sede compound in NY and in the private heterodox musings of a couple of lay “experts” who simply discard the universal teachings of the Doctors/theologians and the Magisterium in favor of their private and ignorant “interpretations” of dogma.

Cowboy, through his rigorist, unorthodox and private interpretations, is saying that no one can be united to Christ in the supernatural bond of charity without actual ablution in the matter of the sacrament. In other words, charity or no charity, faith or no faith, intention or no intention; the sacrament is intrinsic to “perfect charity” because only by the sacrament can one receive the supernatural virtue of charity that allows it to be “perfect” and thus, pleasing to God.

Cowboy is saying that justification (and the remission of sins) is impossible by “the desire thereof”; and in this, he stands with a select handful of heretics who deny a de fide doctrine of the Church.

As Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments:

“Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” And “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.” (De Sacramentis, {BAC, 1954}, 69.)

Amen to that, for “certain heretics” are still with us. Returning to Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence, let’s see what else the Council had to say on its "true understanding" of its condemned proposition that denies that charity is sufficient to unite one to Christ:

17th Council of Florence, (Basle-Ferrara-Florence) 1431-1445 A.D, SESSION 22 15 October 1435

[On the condemnation of the book of friar Augustine of Rome, archbishop of Nazareth]

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. […]

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book [‘by master Augustine, commonly called "of Rome", archbishop of Nazareth’], 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. […]

These propositions and others springing from the same root, which are to be found in the said book, this holy synod condemns and censures as erroneous in the faith. Lest it come to pass that any of the faithful fall into error on account of such teaching, the synod strictly forbids anyone to teach, preach, defend or approve the teaching of the said book, especially the aforesaid condemned and censured propositions, and its supporting treatises. It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. 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.

Calumnies Against Some Decisions in the Matter of Faith Which Have Come Down from Several Centuries

12. The assertions of the synod, accepted as a whole concerning decisions in the matter of faith which have come down from several centuries, which it represents as decrees originating from one particular church or from a few pastors, unsupported by sufficient authority, formulated for the corruption of the purity of faith and for causing disturbance, introduced by violence, from which wounds, still too recent, have been inflicted,—false, deceitful, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and the Church, derogatory to the obedience due to the Apostolic Constitutions, schismatic, dangerous, at least erroneous.

But, by this expressed condemnation of the aforesaid propositions and doctrines, we by no means intend to approve other things contained in the same book, particularly since in it very many propositions and doctrines have been detected, related either to those which have been condemned above, or to those which show an attitude not only of rash contempt for the commonly approved doctrine and discipline, but of special hostility toward the Roman Pontiffs and the Apostolic See.

Did you catch that, Cowboy? Is it beginning to sink in that the Church accepts and embraces the “true understanding” of her common doctrine on charity and unity with Christ precisely as it is commonly expounded by her Doctors, teachers and the theological schools, and precisely as it has been presented on this forum ad nauseum?

And you are going to continue to pit your erudite and novel “interpretation” against the common consensus of the Doctors, saints and theologians, not to mention the magisterium of the Church? Who are you, again?

You “lost” this debate a long time ago.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION, DEI VERBUM:

10. …But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Great, here we go again with another sede swamp "interpretation" of a dogmatic letter:

cowboy wrote:We have the dogmatic letter to Flavian:

"For there are three who give testimony—Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/chalcedo.htm#1

Cowboy, I will tell you the same thing I told C_T (and Duckbill and Columba):

“I do not expect you to understand this, let alone accept it, since you obviously take the corrupted doctrine of the [sede swamp provocateurs] as the infallible word of God.

We already went over this with Duckbill where it was clearly explained that:

OK, but this is where knowing the true sense of what is being dogmatically declared has its advantages; and will keep one out of trouble. So let's turn to the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 8. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. This is a repetition of what was before said, ver. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) --- As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)

So the ‘LINK’ that makes the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood ‘inseparable’ and ‘indivisible’ is the testimony that they all bear witness to the same truth: Christ's humanity, just as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost bear witness to Christ's divinity.

Again, the SPIRIT (of sanctification) and the BLOOD (of Redemption) and the WATER (of Baptism) bear witness to His humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony and witness one and the same truth, and none of them is separable from its LINK [the one and the same testimony to the truth of His Humanity] with the other (“these three are one and remain indivisible”).

In other words (one more time!), the Spirit of Sanctification (in baptism of desire) cannot be separated from its LINK with the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism because each bears witness to the same LINK -- the truth of Christ's humanity; thus, these three are one and inseparable.

As I said, C_T [Cowboy], this will probably make no sense to you since it will take an actual effort to understand the context of the words of Pope St. Leo and St. John; and we already know where you go to find the "truth" ... and its not the Catholic Church.

You do realize that if your ill-informed interpretation is correct, that the Church is wrong, the Fathers are all wrong and her theologians are all wrong? In other words, the Holy See is stained with heresy for teaching through her ordinary and universal magisterium that one may be justified by the Spirit of Sanctification without always having the benefit of Water Baptism. But, thank goodness we have you and a couple of sede’s to correct the Fathers, Doctors and the Church in their egregious error.

Do you realize how arrogant and prideful that sounds? Can you produce even one credible source which agrees with your ‘opinion’? If not, can you give us just one good reason why anyone should listen to you, and not to the Fathers and the Church?” {END}

Continuing with the corrupted gospel according to Cowboy:

cowboy wrote:Plus sin can't be forgiven outside the Church and you aint a member if you're not permitted to receive any of the other sacraments. Only the sacramental seal makes one eligible.

Plus the same council says that faith is necessary too:

"Sixthly, a compendious rule of the faith of most blessed Athanasius [Creed], which begins: Whoever wills to be saved etc.

[Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally....]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

You are picking and choosing like you accuse others.

I am not going to respond to this terrible, rigorist, Pharisaical slop ... its already been proven not only erroneous, but heretical (Cowboy's novel interpretation).

When did the Church’s doctrines become a free for all for uneducated laymen to “interpret” against the common and “true understanding” of the Doctors, saints and theologians, and against the Magisterium of the Church? How does one respond to such arrogance?

Guess I’ll never learn that its not worth the effort.

Mike,

Saint Augustine, clearly, in the later part of his life taught that those individuals whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water. Both the late Father Karl Rahner and the "Feeneyite" Brian Kelly both agree on that fact, and such was the position of Father Feeney. I do not think that you have a "leg to stand on" with this one.

It's all irrelevant, isn't it? We simply assert that non-Catholics can enter Heaven, but not as non-Catholics. You agree with this, right? You agree that everyone in Heaven will know the fullness of Truth regarding the One and Triune God, His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, and His Blessed Mother, the Immaculate ever sinless Virgin, right?

You are, once again, "pounding on open doors." I will ask you this again, "What is wrong with we Feeneyites telling Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc." that they all, without exception, need to convert to the One True Faith and One True Church?" Please answer this question, I really want to know your answer.

Let's assume that you are right -- People are in Heaven (or on their way there) who have died without Baptism and/or the Catholic Faith. So what?! Do you claim that we can know with any certainty how many or how few of people who are in such a category? How does such affect our mission one way or the other??

Unless you are prepared to say that Saint Augustine held to a heretical view, then I do not see why you feel that we are not entitled to hold to the same view. I will grant you the fact that Popes have taught, if only implicitly, that people can die without Baptism and still go to Heaven, although, I would not say that they have gone so far as to claim that there are, in fact, any such persons (yes, the "null set" theological hypothetical again.) On the other hand, perhaps they are simply teaching some theological error. (They have free will, don't they??) But, once again, how does such a fact (individuals going to Heaven without Baptism), even if it is true, affect our mission to evangelize the World?? I would really like to know your answer to this.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Saint Augustine, clearly, in the later part of his life taught that those individuals whom the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life have, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water. Both the late Father Karl Rahner and the "Feeneyite" Brian Kelly both agree on that fact, and such was the position of Father Feeney. I do not think that you have a "leg to stand on" with this one.

It's all irrelevant, isn't it?

Nonsense, for that is NOT the common consensus, and especially not that of St. Aquinas and other Doctors who were as familiar with the writings of Augustine as Fr. Rahner and the handful of others who claimed St. Augustine “reversed” his position. But anyone familiar with the argumentative and rhetorical style of Augustine knows that he was prone to exaggerate a particular point for dramatic effect against the particular sect of heretics with whom he was currently engaged (as he himself admitted).

So the only FACT you have is the testimony of a couple of scholars and of Brian Kelly who simply repeats the same testimony.

And the only thing “irrelevant” is your entire response which completely ignores my response to Cowboy. Did you even read my response and do you even know the subject of that response?

Cowboy denies that anyone can be justified prior to or without water baptism … period. No water baptism, no unity with Christ … period. So what does the alleged “change” in the teaching of St. Augustine have to do with denying sanctification “by the desire thereof”? Absolutely NOTHING.

So you are the one pounding the open door by changing the subject so you can go on and on with your silly de jure/de facto drivel.

Yes, I did read your reply, but you have a habit of repeating things that you said before, so those sections of your posts I skim. Please, answer my question from above. And, please, at least humor me!

My unanswered question to Mike:

"What is 'wrong' with we "Feeneyites" telling Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc. that they all, without exception, need to convert to the One True Faith and One True Church?"

Jehanne wrote:Yes, I did read your reply, but you have a habit of repeating things that you said before, so those sections of your posts I skim. Please, answer my question from above. And, please, at least humor me!

My unanswered question to Mike:

"What is 'wrong' with we "Feeneyites" telling Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc. that they all, without exception, need to convert to the One True Faith and One True Church?"

Absolutely nothing.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Yes, I did read your reply, but you have a habit of repeating things that you said before, so those sections of your posts I skim. Please, answer my question from above. And, please, at least humor me!

My unanswered question to Mike:

"What is 'wrong' with we "Feeneyites" telling Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc. that they all, without exception, need to convert to the One True Faith and One True Church?"

Absolutely nothing.

Well, I am glad that we agree on something!! As for your quote from Saint Alphonsus Liguori:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.

According to Saint Alphonsus,

To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated. (Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent)

we ought to affirm that "those who die as infidels are damned." For Saint Alphonsus' hypothetical charity-filled infidel, what's wrong with believing the following:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I have always admitted the possibility that there are individuals in Paradise who have died without Baptism. What is an absurdity is the assertion that Baptism of Blood and/or Desire actually has happened in the complete absence of sacramental Baptism of Water, and I do not see any Father and/or Doctor ever asserting that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood has, in fact, ever happened, and that's the absurdity, the assertion that such not only can happen but that it does happen. How could one (you) ever prove something like that, that is, that someone was never Baptized, even if such occurred in that person's infancy??

Nonsense; baptism of desire cannot at one and the same time be a valid and true doctrine of the Church, while also being an “absurdity” should the possibility of baptism of desire be said to be real (not only may we presume it has happened, but will continue to happen). There is nothing more “absurd” than the specious proposition that considers baptism of desire as a true doctrine de jure, but an “absurdity” if it is proposed de facto; meaning if it is said to ASSURE the de facto salvation of the faith-filled person who has the proper intentions. Whether we can “know with certainty” of any particular cases is as irrelevant as the fact that we cannot “know” with certainty of any particular cases of adults saved by Baptism.

We know with certainty that there are martyrs who are venerated as saints who tradition and the Church consider unbaptized catechumens and last minute unbaptized converts.

Jehanne wrote:As for your parsing of Cantate Domino, as to what was infallible and what was not, the Fathers at Florece were quoting Saint Fulgentius, who died in 533 AD:

"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels." (To Peter on the Faith)

So now I am the one “parsing” Cantate Domino “as to what was infallible and what was not” when never once did I suggest that either dogmatic text was NOT infallible, but only that the one condemning the proposition that charity is not sufficient to unite one to Christ (the infallible ex cathedra proposition you deny ... or place into “context” so that other conditions are necessary), is considered by theologians to be a solemn ex cathedra definition (said positively); while the other one, the one about martyrdom and remaining in the Church (that Feeneyites like to present as a “solemn definition”), is not a definition, but a supporting declaration and explanation to a solemn definition.

The fact that the Church considers it her solemn obligation (under her divinely conferred solitary authority) to present her understanding of blood martyrdom (as she has always understood it) has never crossed the Feeneyite mind ... he already knows what the text “defined”, and he knows the dogmatic text was given to him personally by the divine hand of God; after all, the entire dogmatic passage is “ex cathedra”!

And, with respect to your citation from St. Fulgentius, the Church teaches the same dogma today … and only Feeneyites equate unity and salvation in the Church solely with material visible incorporation through the sacrament of Baptism.

Btw, this is same St. Fulgentius who taught that "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

So, according to Feeneyites, the Council of Florence is citing St. Fulgentius but “rejects” his and the common doctrine on Baptism of blood by “defining” that no one at all can be saved, even if he should shed his blood for Christ, unless he “remains” in the bosom and unity of the Church; and, according to the Feeneyite Pharisees columba and cowboy, this solemn declaration “implicitly” and dogmatically excludes the faith-filled unbaptized catechumen and martyr from being united to Christ in charity.

Note too that St. Fulgentius taught that the faith-filled unbaptized martyr is already IN the Catholic Church, placing into context Cantate Domino’s solemn declaration on unity and blood martrydom. And, as you said, since Cantate Domino was citing St. Fulgentius, a comparison of their respective texts is actually quite startling and revealing:

St. Fulgentius, To Peter on the Faith: “Anyone who has received the Sacrament of Baptism but remained away from the Catholic Church is never prepared to obtain eternal life. Such a person, even if he is very generous with almsgiving and even pours out his blood for the name of Christ, because of the fact that in this life he has not held tightly to the unity of the Catholic Church, he will not have eternal salvation. [...] Hold most firmly and never doubt that any heretic or schismatic whatsoever, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he will not have been gathered into the Catholic Church, no matter how many alms he may have given, even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can never be saved."

Pope Eugenius IV, Council of Florence, 1442: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

And certain Feeneyites would have us believe that Cantate Domino, in an almost exact word-for-word rendition of the text of St. Fulgentius, intended to reform and expand upon the meaning of our esteemed Saint by condemning even faith-filled catechumens who die for the name of Christ, when it is clear that St. Fulgentius excluded only those who do not remain in the unity of the Church, and/or heretics and schismatics who refused to enter the Church.

And yet, the same Council of Florence solemnly declared:

“It decrees that transgressors shall be punished as heretics and with other canonical penalties. 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 then these same uneducated Feeneyite Pharisees tell us that the section on martyrdom is an “ex cathedra” solemn definition that is not to be understood as it was always understood by the Doctors and theologians (by the Church), and in fact needs no “interpretation” by the Church; and that any understanding taught by the Church that does not condemn the catechumen to hell is a “recession in meaning” from the clearly “defined” words under the specious name of a “deeper understanding”.

After all, as Cowboy tells us, the unbaptized martyr is incapable of charity and thus, he cannot be united to Christ by that same bond (of loving God with one’s whole heart ... and God returning love for love by means of supernatural charity).

Pope Pius XII: “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” (Allocution to midwives)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, ex cathedra, “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the proposition[s]: ‘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.’”

Anyone who is united to Christ in the bond of charity already possesses the supernatural gift of faith (charity vivifies faith) and is in a state of sanctifying grace. This does not mean that if Baptism has not yet been received it is no longer necessary, for the divine precept is still necessary by a necessity of means. But the bond of charity also presupposes the intention and desire to be baptized, and no one can be untied to Christ in the bond of charity apart from and without Baptism, at least in desire.

Cowboy wrote:

You're interpreting by assuming perfect charity can exist outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. If we are to understand this you have separated the divine gifts of Faith Hope and Charity which we are taught to receive in the Sacrament of Baptism … Plus sin can't be forgiven outside the Church and you aint a member if you're not permitted to receive any of the other sacraments. Only the sacramental seal makes one eligible.

Heresy is alive and well.

MRyan wrote:Btw, this is same St. Fulgentius who taught that "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

Mike,

As a "Feeneyite," I agree with the above teaching 100%. So, what, exactly, do you think that I am "denying"?? And, please be specific.

You state, "We know with certainty that there are martyrs who are venerated as saints who tradition and the Church consider unbaptized catechumens and last minute unbaptized converts," which is absolutely true, but there is also traditions from the early Church which attest to individuals being miraculously raised from the dead and/or water miraculously appearing so that catechumens could be Baptized, which, of course, "Feeneyites" love to cite. Do you believe that those traditions and/or accounts are false? If not, why cannot we at least have faith in the particular situations of the other "unbaptized" martyrs? Is it wrong to believe that all of these martyrs were, in fact, Baptized? Are you saying that it is heretical to believe that everyone who attains the Beatific Vision has ended this life with Sacramental Baptism of Water, if only by the Providence of the One and Triune God? Do you believe that such is impossible for God to bring such about (the Baptisms of His elect), if such is, indeed, His will? Please be specific.

Jehanne wrote:So, clearly, Cantate Domino is infallible, if only by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As for Florence condemning the proposition "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," the words of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc") summed-up things nicely:

"About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter."

Way to tap dance around this; but I couldn’t agree more; we shouldn’t “complicate” a straight forward dogmatic definition that makes it absolutely clear by the clearly defined words that “To be a member of Christ, it is … enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; and that no other union is needed” because unity with Christ in the bond of charity presupposes a state of sanctifying grace ... a state of salvation for those who die in such a state.

Ah, but the true blue hard core Feeneyite Pharisees tell us to forget about the “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by [pope Pius XII and] these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, for to be a “member of Christ” can have only one meaning, and that is to be a “member” of the Church which can be effected by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism alone.

So what the Council really meant to condemn, the Feeneyites tell us, was the proposition that holds that “To be a member of Christ, it is not enough [for one of the baptized faithful] to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed”.

Of course, if someone is already a member of the Church (and to Christ) by virtue of one’s Baptism, does this not already presuppose the gift of supernatural charity that was infused in Baptism?

Regardless, the point is that certain Feeneyites are hypocrites who are very selective with their “definitions” by ignoring what is in fact a solemn definition (or adding words to its meaning so that they come to a “deeper understanding” and a recession from the obvious meaning), while also elevating a dogmatic explanatory text (on blood martyrdom) to “solemn definition” status while refusing to accept and embrace it “according to [its] true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.”

In fact, by rejecting this “true understanding” of the Fathers, Doctors and theologians, these same Feeneyites “show an attitude not only of rash contempt for the commonly approved doctrine and discipline, but of special hostility toward the Roman Pontiffs and the Apostolic See.”

Jehanne wrote:In all the conversations that we have had on this board, what objection do you have to the fact of we "Feeneyites" telling (if only "implicitly") Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Orthodoxs, atheists, agnostics, etc. that they need to convert to the One True Faith and the One True Church, "outside which no one at all is saved"?

Let's assume that you are right -- People are in Heaven (or on their way there) who have died without Baptism and/or the Catholic Faith. So what?! Do you claim that we can know with any certainty how many or how few of people who are in such a category? How does such affect our mission one way or the other??

It doesn’t affect the Church’s mission, and why are you pushing this how “can we know with any certainty how many people” are in heaven without Baptism or without coming to an explicit faith in our Lord before death mantra as if I have ever said we can “know” any such thing. You can’t tell me with any certainty how many or how few of the Baptized are in heaven, so what’s the point?

I can tell you with de fide certainty that every soul in heaven has received at least the fruit of baptism (by desire) and has explicit Catholic faith in our Lord, which means that somewhere between death’s door and the beatific vision the mysteries that may have been only implicit in one’s explicit supernatural faith are now explicit.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that every soul who dies with faith, charity and the proper intentions is assured of salvation. What difference does it make if I cannot know with any certainty who those souls happen to be?

Your obsession with the de jure/de facto distinctions (and false portrayal thereof) are a distraction and completely irrelevant to the Church whose only concern is with teaching the necessary requirements and providing the means of salvation, and she does not concern herself with whether we can “know” for certain if a particular soul is actually in heaven (with the exception of the canonized saints and martyrs), but only with those conditions that are conducive to sanctifying grace and to unity with Christ.

Jehanne wrote:Unless you are prepared to say that Saint Augustine held to a heretical view, then I do not see why you feel that we are not entitled to hold to the same view. I will grant you the fact that Popes have taught, if only implicitly, that people can die without Baptism and still go to Heaven, although, I would not say that they have gone so far as to claim that there are, in fact, any such persons (yes, the "null set" theological hypothetical again.) On the other hand, perhaps they are simply teaching some theological error. (They have free will, don't they??) But, once again, how does such a fact (individuals going to Heaven without Baptism), even if it is true, affect our mission to evangelize the World?? I would really like to know your answer to this.

That you do not know my answer to this is really quite amazing. It would seem that the very same magisterial documents that I cite ad nauseum on the Church’s missionary character and her solemn obligation to evangelize and teach the Gospel were written with invisible ink.

Now why would I be prepared to say St. Augustine’s view was “heretical”, when it isn’t? What’s heretical is the stuff that Cowboy is trying to sell because he listens to a couple of lay internet cranks instead of the Church. St. Augustine would condemn the specious heresy that posits that no one can be translated to a state of justification without water Baptism.

And, as I explained more than once, St. Augustine’s alleged “reversal” of position on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is anything but conclusive.

Jehanne wrote:Well, I am glad that we agree on something!! As for your quote from Saint Alphonsus Liguori:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:

It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.

And why is this supposed to be a problem? It is not allowed to AFFIRM that Confucius (or any infidel) was saved, as if we can know that his good will saved him. And objectively speaking, “those who die as infidels are damned”.

But, does that mean that Confucius could not have been saved by the divine light of grace? Of course not; its just a matter of where the Church places the emphasis -- on the objective state of infidelity (damnation), or the subjective possibility of salvation under the right objective conditions. The fact that she chooses now to emphasize the latter does not mean that she has changed her position on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. St. Alphonsus says the same thing:

“In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.”

If I remember correctly, you said “implicit desire” is the “formal heresy” of the 1949 Holy Office Letter and the “formal heresy” of St. Thomas Aquinas (if it does not become “explicit”). Nice to know St. Alphonus teaches the same “formal heresy”. Does this same Doctor of the Church also "deny free will"?

Jehanne wrote:According to Saint Alphonsus,

To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated. (Appendix to his work on the Council of Trent)

we ought to affirm that "those who die as infidels are damned." For Saint Alphonsus' hypothetical charity-filled infidel, what's wrong with believing the following:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

What’s wrong with the above? Absolutely nothing; and the 1949 Holy Office Letter taught the same doctrine.

MRyan wrote:Ah, but the true blue hard core Feeneyite Pharisees tell us to forget about the “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by [pope Pius XII and] these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, for to be a “member of Christ” can have only one meaning, and that is to be a “member” of the Church which can be effected by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism alone.

Father Fenney did not teach this. As for the Holy Office letter, it denies human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief. However, if belief (or desire) can be unconscious, how does one go from unconscious belief (or desire) to unconscious unbelief (or desire), as an act of one's own free will? Just as one cannot be an unconscious traitor neither can one be an unconscious apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Btw, this is same St. Fulgentius who taught that "From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

Mike,

As a "Feeneyite," I agree with the above teaching 100%. So, what, exactly, do you think that I am "denying"?? And, please be specific.

You repeatedly told us that the implicit desire for baptism by the same martyr who pours his blood out for Christ is a “formal heresy” (if it does not become "explicit" before death). You also stated on more than one occasion (and still affirm) that “implicit desire” denies free will.

You then jump on the absurd dejure/defacto bandwagon by pushing the totally false distinction of de facto salvation in the sense that we can KNOW with certainty if a particular soul received the beatific vision, as IF the Church has ever taught any such thing.

What is de facto, is the ASSURANCE of salvation given by the Church to those who die united to Christ in the bond of the sacrament, or in the bond of charity, whether through baptism of blood or baptism of desire, as the Church clearly teaches.

If you have softened your position by suggesting that the Church teaches only “theological error” on a mater of salvation, you might as well accuse the Church of heresy.

Are you a “true Feeneyite” who holds the same “official” position as that presented by the St. Benedict Center which DENIES the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood and presents the Justification defined by Trent “by the desire thereof” as an unfulfilled state of sanctifying grace that can save no one without the sacrament since it cannot make one a “true” heir to the kingdom?

Let’s see how far this “we Feeneyites” loyalty actually goes by your explanation of how you can accept the teaching of Sts. Fulgentis, Aquinas and Liguori on the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood, while at the same time denying (with "we Feeneyites" at the St. Benedict Center) the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Something has to give; and its time you faced the doctrinal demon that goes to the heart of the Feeneyite error.

And please don't try and tell me what Fr. Feeney "really" taught; I presented to you the very same "official" position of the St. Benedict Center taken verbatim from the very same links you provided.

Jehanne wrote:You state, "We know with certainty that there are martyrs who are venerated as saints who tradition and the Church consider unbaptized catechumens and last minute unbaptized converts," which is absolutely true, but there is also traditions from the early Church which attest to individuals being miraculously raised from the dead and/or water miraculously appearing so that catechumens could be Baptized, which, of course, "Feeneyites" love to cite. Do you believe that those traditions and/or accounts are false? If not, why cannot we at least have faith in the particular situations of the other "unbaptized" martyrs? Is it wrong to believe that all of these martyrs were, in fact, Baptized? Are you saying that it is heretical to believe that everyone who attains the Beatific Vision has ended this life with Sacramental Baptism of Water, if only by the Providence of the One and Triune God? Do you believe that such is impossible for God to bring such about (the Baptisms of His elect), if such is, indeed, His will? Please be specific.

It is heretical to deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire and it is heretical to frame the Church’s true teaching as an “absurdity” when the only absurdity is the false presentation of “de facto” salvation; and it is heretical to call the implicit desire for baptism “formally heretical” and it is heretical to say that the Church’s teaching on implicit desire denies the dogma of free will.

Does that answer your question?

Whether one believes and has faith that God will provide the sacrament in each and every case is a far cry from DENYING that one can be united to Christ in charity (and saved) without the sacrament; it is a far cry from DENYING that anyone can have their sins remitted through charity/contrition (without the sacrament), and it is a far cry from DENYING the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

If you do not deny any of these doctrines of the Church, then good for you; but please stop with the "we Feeneyites" mantra; and stop with your heretical "denial of free will" accusation against the Church as she clearly understands implicit desire (as it is commonly presented by the Holy Office, the CCC, by Saints Aquinas and Liguori, and by the theologians).

I’ve been over this so many times that for you to ask these question tests my patience to the extreme. What you believe God “will do” in any give circumstance has nothing to do with what the Church actually teaches on the specific minimal conditions that will absolutely assure salvation. If any Feeneyite wants to “deny and reject” the Church’s teachings on salvation with respect to baptism of blood and baptism of desire – well, it certainly is a “free country” where “religious submission of the mind and will” has become something of a joke.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Ah, but the true blue hard core Feeneyite Pharisees tell us to forget about the “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by [pope Pius XII and] these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, for to be a “member of Christ” can have only one meaning, and that is to be a “member” of the Church which can be effected by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism alone.

Father Fenney did not teach this.

You have no idea what Fr. Feeney taught.

Jehanne wrote:As for the Holy Office letter, it denies human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief. However, if belief (or desire) can be unconscious, how does one go from unconscious belief (or desire) to unconscious unbelief (or desire), as an act of one's own free will? Just as one cannot be an unconscious traitor neither can one be an unconscious apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

Total heretical bunk. Why don't you respond to one of my many rebuttals on this so called "denial of free will", instead of regurgitating the same uneducated nonsense with unaffected regularity.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Ah, but the true blue hard core Feeneyite Pharisees tell us to forget about the “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by [pope Pius XII and] these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, for to be a “member of Christ” can have only one meaning, and that is to be a “member” of the Church which can be effected by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism alone.

Father Fenney did not teach this.

You have no idea what Fr. Feeney taught.

I find it amusing that here I am, a future hopeful Third Order member of MICM, and none of the Brothers nor the religious superior, Brother Andre, has told me that I have "no idea" what Father Feeney taught. My opinions are, of course, on my blog:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

I would really like to know where I have "erred" with respect to Father Feeney's teachings. I know that you will not read my blog, but perhaps others will. I have sent the link to Brother Andre and the other Brothers, and none of them have made the claim that you are making.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:As for the Holy Office letter, it denies human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief. However, if belief (or desire) can be unconscious, how does one go from unconscious belief (or desire) to unconscious unbelief (or desire), as an act of one's own free will? Just as one cannot be an unconscious traitor neither can one be an unconscious apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

Total heretical bunk. Why don't you respond to one of my many rebuttals on this so called "denial of free will", instead of regurgitating the same uneducated nonsense with unaffected regularity.

Well, then help me out, one more time! Do you believe that a woman on a date who says, "No," in fact, means "Yes"? Do you believe that it is possible for someone, say, a Jew, infidel, pagan, etc., to hear the Gospel and reject it? If so, how does one who has an unconscious "implicit faith and desire," as an act of his/her own free will, decide that they no longer want to be a Catholic?? Please tell me how such would ever occur; I really want to know! And, if someone truly had "perfect charity and love for God," are you claiming that God would not reveal Himself to that person? If so, are you saying that what Saint Thomas taught only happens in some instances and not others? In particular, does the following always happen?

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

In other words, does the above in bold always occur for an infidel who has "perfect charity"? Do you think that an infidel who has "perfect charity" can willfully deny a dogma of the Catholic faith? If so, does such an infidel still have "perfect charity"?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Ah, but the true blue hard core Feeneyite Pharisees tell us to forget about the “true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by [pope Pius XII and] these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, for to be a “member of Christ” can have only one meaning, and that is to be a “member” of the Church which can be effected by virtue of the sacrament of Baptism alone.

Father Fenney did not teach this.

You have no idea what Fr. Feeney taught.

I find it amusing that here I am, a future hopeful Third Order member of MICM, and none of the Brothers nor the religious superior, Brother Andre, has told me that I have "no idea" what Father Feeney taught. My opinions are, of course, on my blog:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

I would really like to know where I have "erred" with respect to Father Feeney's teachings. I know that you will not read my blog, but perhaps others will. I have sent the link to Brother Andre and the other Brothers, and none of them have made the claim that you are making.

I also find it amusing that you don’t even know what the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center on baptism of desire actually is.

The only "claim" I made is the same one that is contained in the very same St. Benedict Center links provided by you. If anyone wants to know what the “official” position is, it’s right there in the links. You can spin it any way you want, but time and again I provided verbatim evidence for the “official” position, even if you are happy to pretend it does not exist or to state “that is not their position” as you provide once again one of the same links to the St. Benedict Center website demonstrating that their position is exactly what I said it is; or, you distract us by providing a link that does not address the non-efficacy of baptism of desire.

The St. Benedict Center’s official position denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire. This is not conjecture, this is a fact. It is also a fact that they teach that Justification by “or the desire thereof” places one in a state of sanctification, but this state of grace cannot make one a “true heir to the kingdom”; and thus, this particular state of grace can save no one without the sacrament where “true” justification actually takes place. That’s what “non-efficacious” means.

This is not about an opinion on predestination or the providence of God that at least recognizes the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire, this is an “official” position that posits that under the new law of grace (as defined by Trent), there is a non-salvific species of sanctifying grace (by the desire thereof) that can save no one until it is fulfilled in water Baptism.

If I have said anything that is not true, or misrepresented their position by misconstruing the meaning of their exact words, I would be happy to stand corrected if only someone would demonstrate that their official position is not what they clearly say it is; but please stop telling me what Fr. Feeney “really” taught when it is clear that what you think he taught is not the same as the “official” position.

Do you think the St. Benedict Center cares that you do not deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire when you simply call its realization an “absurdity”? And why are you constantly seeking approval from the St. Benedict Center; an approval you claim by default because no one has objected to your various Blog entries? The St. Benedict Center probably has about as much interest in reading your Blog as I do. Sorry, Jehanne, but I could only get through a couple of your entries before throwing my hands up ... nothing has changed and I do not need to read your nutty stuff in double doses when I can read it here.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:As for the Holy Office letter, it denies human free will. If one is capable of belief, then one must also be capable of unbelief. However, if belief (or desire) can be unconscious, how does one go from unconscious belief (or desire) to unconscious unbelief (or desire), as an act of one's own free will? Just as one cannot be an unconscious traitor neither can one be an unconscious apostate, heretic, or schismatic.

Total heretical bunk. Why don't you respond to one of my many rebuttals on this so called "denial of free will", instead of regurgitating the same uneducated nonsense with unaffected regularity.

Well, then help me out, one more time!

No, I am tired of doing the heavy lifting as you repeat the same old nonsense without even once addressing my arguments which clearly demonstrate that an implicit desire is rooted in an act of the will.

You’re just going in circles and if you don’t understand how a member of an Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, can be inculpable in his mistaken rejection or understanding of Papal Primacy, while being capable of possessing faith and charity (and being in a state of grace), that’s your problem, not mine.

St. Augustine also spelled it out for you but you simply ignore it as if the Church’s teaching does not exist, or you call it an “absurdity”, a “formal heresy”, or whatever “opinion” you wish to throw on the wall on any particular day.

You have no idea what the St. Benedict Center teaches on baptism of desire and justification, and I also find that quite amusing.

MRyan wrote:You have no idea what the St. Benedict Center teaches on baptism of desire and justification, and I also find that quite amusing.

Mike,

What the Saint Benedict Center "teaches" about Baptism of Desire can be found here:

http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html

5. Regarding baptism of desire:

• No Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire is a sacrament.
  Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that baptism of desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church.

• Question: Without contradicting the thrice defined Dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”, and the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent, how can one define the expression baptism of desire?
  Answer: The following definition of baptism of desire can be made which will be totally consistent with the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and with the thrice defined dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church”. This definition of baptism of desire goes as follows:

In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains. (From page 126 of The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia, by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956) (Emphasis mine)

Please note my comments at the end of Brother David's article. Now, let's consider your statement from Saint Alphonsus:

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

As I stated in my comments to Brother David's article:

1) Major Premise — The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

2) 1st Minor Premise — The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,’ but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do.”

3) 2nd Minor Premise — God is certainly capable of bringing about the fulfillment of His commands:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

Conclusion:

“There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you.” (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

In conclusion, an infidel with perfect charity will always find his/her way to the saving font, and an Orthodox with perfect charity will always find his/her way into the Church. To claim otherwise is to deny human free will and/or the Sovereignty, Providence, and Revelation of the One and Triune God to His Creation, and, especially, God's Commandment to His Elect, those who have been justified, to be sacramentally Baptized in water.

Non-Catholics look at traditional Catholic teaching on "no salvation outside the Church" and object to a narrow understanding of that concept, and many Catholics (and today we must say most) have come to reject a narrow interpretation of the dogma. I think the basis for the objection is the apparent "goodness" of many people who are externally "outside" the Church.

It seems to me you meet this objection in one of two ways. You broaden the concept of the Catholic Church to join these "good" people (who appear to be outside externally) to her, or you explain how these people are not really "good" (as "goodness" is defined for purposes of "meriting" salvation) - which entails a certain understanding of God's Providence and Predestination, the meaning of original sin and its effects, etc.

As God is truth and justice, no one truly "good" is damned to suffer (positive torments) in Hell, and no one without a gratuitous gift of grace enters heaven. I think the Church's teaching on baptism of desire, implicit faith, etc. must be considered in that context as an explanation which buttresses, or one may believe as buttressing, a more narrow understanding: those without the Catholic faith have not received that supernatural gift, a gratuitous gift from God, and had they truly been worthy and "good," they would have received that gift. No one rises to the level of perfect faith and charity that would save if one could reach it without the Catholic faith without the Catholic faith.

Can't one look at baptism of desire and implicit faith as expressions of justice which highlight the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation? The depravity of man and the lack of justification can only be removed by the Blood of Christ, and the in fact necessity of explicit faith in Christ highlights that no one in fact achieves perfect charity - which would justify if reached by any means - without such faith.

It is rather like the understanding of one who believes in fact that the faith of Peter will never fail, and that no truly elected pope can be a heretic. This does not cancel out the truth that a heretical pope would not be a true pope. One might accept that as truth and nonetheless believe in a "necessity of infallibility" - pursuant to God's will and Providence - that no pope will become a heretic.

I feel the same way about baptism of desire and implicit faith (as they are defined). I do not believe the saving faith, nor the necessary baptism by grace, is achieved in fact without explicit faith in Christ. I accept the Church's teaching on baptism of desire and even on "implicit faith" (which means I must believe that the Church does not teach that some in fact are saved without explicit faith in Christ) as truths, but do not believe that any man in fact achieves salvation by meeting those conditions without explicit faith.

This is my understanding, and I believe it does not violate any teaching of the Church.

Jehanne, the only problem I have with your presentation of the St. Benedict Center article (by Br. David Mary) is the glaring omission of an important section (4), as well the omission of an important section of Br. Michael’s “Reply to Verbum” (http://catholicism.org/feeney-doctrine.html).

If a may digress momentarily, allow me, for the benefit of columba, to cite Br. David on the oft cited Canon 2:

Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

[In terms of a syllogism, we have the infallible major premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation," the infallible minor premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," and the conclusion: "True and natural water is necessary for salvation." This conclusion is not itself infallible, because it is the product of reasoning external to the Council's. Still, it is a strong argument.]

"The conclusion is not itself infallible"; and not only is it not infallible, it is not even a “strong argument” if it is meant by this that water baptism is absolutely (intrinsically) necessary for salvation such that without it, the end (salvation) cannot be. The Church, tradition, the Doctors and the theologians say otherwise.

Of course, columba never claimed to hold to the positions of the St. Benedict Center, anyway. Feeneyites love a diversity of opinions on salvation, don’t they?

OK, back to the subject at hand.

Here is the “official” St. Benedict Center position as articulated by Br. Andre Marie and Br. David Mary, respectfully:

Br. Andre: “I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are.”

Br. David Mary: “4. In Conclusion, Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.” (http://catholicism.org/desire-justification-salvation.html)

In fact, Br. Michael, in “A Reply to Verbum”, wrote: “You [Bp. Williamson] state that Father Feeney excluded baptism of desire and blood as ‘means of salvation.’ This he did.” And:

This does not mean that justified, but unbaptized, catechumens are not children of God. They are. But they have not yet been “born of God” fully. (John 1:14) Why not? Because the “power,” which has been given them in “receiving Christ” to be made “the sons of God” (John 1:12) has to be fully actualized in the laver of regeneration. They are in grace, but not yet sealed as “sons” and “heirs.”

Let’s unravel the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center. The St. Benedict Center does not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), and hence, anyone translated to justification without the sacrament (by the desire thereof) cannot attain salvation unless he receives the sacrament.

Why? Because, while those justified (by desire) may be considered “children of God”, they have not yet been “born of God” FULLY (I guess they haven’t been “formally” or “fully” adopted as sons of God). Like the just under the Old Law, their status as “sons” or “children of God” has not been “fully actualized” by the merit of Christ’s blood which, apparently, can only be transmitted or “actualized in the laver of regeneration” where they are “sealed” as true sons and heirs.

Fr. Feeney basically said the same thing in Bread of Life, pg 131:

But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

In other words, those justified (by desire) may be in a state of sanctifying grace; but this state of grace is non-salvific in that is has not yet been actualized as making one a true heir to the kingdom because they have not yet been “born of God fully” in that they have NOT yet been freed from original sin in the fulfilled and true sense.

In other words, for the faith and charity filled justified soul, true justification has been realized only in potential.

This is nothing less than the unfulfilled justification under the old dispensation, and it is NOT the justification under the new law of grace defined by Trent. Pope Leo XIII marks the clear and dramatic distinctions:

But if they [those under the Old Law] also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., I, 2). Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., 8.). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20). (Divinum Illud Munus, 1897)

And here is how Trent defined the translation to justification under the new law of grace that is not of the same kind as under the Old Law:

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

Ch. VII: This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

The last does NOT say “that a man translated and born again as a son of God becomes just so that he may BECOME an heir to the kingdom IF, and only IF he completes the works of the Law (Baptism) that is still lacking”; no, he becomes just “so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting” and will remain an heir to the kingdom so long as he is perseveres, by grace, in the grace of justification.

Under the new law of grace, a justified man is a “son of God” and an “heir to the Kingdom” in the true and fulfilled sense – period. The ordinary and chief means of transmission is the sacrament of Baptism; and if someone failed to receive the sacrament out of negligence, he would not be a just man because he would not have a perfect contrition/charity and the necessary intention to be justified by “the desire thereof”.

There you go, Jehanne; the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center that not only denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of desire, it posits that there is no such thing under the new law of grace as a true and fulfilled Justification without its true fulfillment in the sacrament of baptism, which is contrary to the teaching of the Church and the common consensus of the Doctors and theologians.

Btw, Brian Kelly clearly does not take this hard line since he accepts the Church’s teaching on the salvific efficacy of perfect charity that is manifested in blood martyrdom (without the sacrament). He simply takes the perfectly orthodox “providence of God” position while avoiding this “not truly or fully redeemed or justified” heterodoxy that holds that perfect charity without the sacrament in re can save no one.

MRyan wrote:Btw, Brian Kelly clearly does not take this hard line since he accepts the Church’s teaching on the salvific efficacy of perfect charity that is manifested in blood martyrdom (without the sacrament). He simply takes the perfectly orthodox “providence of God” position while avoiding this “not truly or fully redeemed or justified” heterodoxy that holds that perfect charity without the sacrament in re can save no one.

I have corresponded with Mr. Kelly on occasion; he posts more on the St. Benedict Center feeds than do all the other St. Benedict Center members combined (another post this morning, in fact.) The position that Mr. Kelly holds is the one that I also hold to, and Mr. Kelly has been with the Saint Benedict Center for over 40 years and is also a Third Order member.

This does not mean that justified, but unbaptized, catechumens are not children of God. They are. But they have not yet been “born of God” fully. (John 1:14) Why not? Because the “power,” which has been given them in “receiving Christ” to be made “the sons of God” (John 1:12) has to be fully actualized in the laver of regeneration. They are in grace, but not yet sealed as “sons” and “heirs.” (Br. Michael, “A Reply to Verbum”)

I wanted to address this separately.

The “power” which is given to the Baptized in “receiving Christ” is the power to live the life of grace, which is derived from the right bestowed in Baptism to participate in the sacramental life of the Church (normally associated with the sacramental seal). Though of a different quality and function, it is the same priestly character derived from the Priesthood of Christ:

St. Thomas Aquinas: The Sacraments produce a Character, insofar as by them we are deputed to the worship of God according to the rite of Christian Religion. Wherefore, Dionysius the Areopagite (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) says God "by a kind of Sign grants a share of Himself to those who approach Him," and then adds, "by making them God-like and communicators of divine gifts." Now, the worship of God consists either in receiving divine gifts or in bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes, some power is needed. Consequently, a Character signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things pertaining to divine worship. (ST III, Q.63, art.2)

Father Pietro Parente: The Character of Baptism is a true participation, though only initial, of the Priesthood of Christ insofar as it confers the prerogatives of all priesthood: sacerdotal being, because the Character is an ontological consecration; and sacerdotal power, because, although it is principally a receptive faculty, it is also secondarily an active faculty in the line of ascending mediation insofar as it renders all the faithful capable of offering mediately, through a priest, the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Milwaukee: Bruce Publ. Co., 1951, first English edition, p.30)

However, for the martyr or the catechumen at death’s door, the power and right to participate in the sacramental life of the Church is not intrinsic to his salvation; it is only intrinsic to those who must be properly equipped before they can participate in the divine life of the Church as one of the baptized faithful.

Unfortunately, the official St. Benedict Center position seems to confuse or equate actualization of sacramental power with being made a true son and heir to the kingdom under the new law of grace; as if no one can be truly justified as a true heir to the kingdom by perfect charity without actual sacramental ablution.

I consider such heterodoxy erroneous to the Faith.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Btw, Brian Kelly clearly does not take this hard line since he accepts the Church’s teaching on the salvific efficacy of perfect charity that is manifested in blood martyrdom (without the sacrament). He simply takes the perfectly orthodox “providence of God” position while avoiding this “not truly or fully redeemed or justified” heterodoxy that holds that perfect charity without the sacrament in re can save no one.

I have corresponded with Mr. Kelly on occasion; he posts more on the St. Benedict Center feeds than do all the other St. Benedict Center members combined (another post this morning, in fact.) The position that Mr. Kelly holds is the one that I also hold to, and Mr. Kelly has been with the Saint Benedict Center for over 40 years and is also a Third Order member.

Jehanne,

That's fine, so perhaps now you understand that the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center is not necessarily that of other MICM members; and perhaps you will resist the temptation to tell me what Fr. Feeney "really" believed or what the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center actually is.

My only issue with Brian is his rather novel idea of the Magisterium where he states:

Baptism of desire was not “held from the first centuries by all the Fathers,” nor is it the teaching of “the Magisterium of the Church.”

Oops. 20 lashes, no less. He should know better.

tornpage wrote:The depravity of man and the lack of justification can only be removed by the Blood of Christ, and the in fact necessity of explicit faith in Christ highlights that no one in fact achieves perfect charity - which would justify if reached by any means - without such faith.

And this goes up in smoke if it is based on factual error ... which it probably is. Were the Justified under he old law any less depraved? And yet, many were justified and saved by an implicit faith in the Redeemer to come.

Why do you equate or limit the application of the salvific efficacy of the Blood of Christ to an explicit faith in the Mysteries of Christ? The Holy Ghost is not free to apply the merit of His Blood to those who love God (and our Lord, at least implicitly) with their whole hearts and seek only to do His will? God cannot return love for love with the gift of supernatural charity?

I see no real difference between Fr. Harrison’s “near death experience” examples for relating how God may very well reveal the Mysteries of Christ to someone who has just died, and the teaching of St. Aquinas that God will reveal these same Mysteries even by internal inspiration. The Church does not delve into such subjective possibilities of what may or may not transpire at death, except to teach that God will provide for the salvation of those who truly love Him, even for those who may not come do an explicit faith before death (that we KNOW of).

Like many others, you seem intent on defining the limits of “perfect charity”; an impossible task, especially given the imposition of a limitation that appears to be against the teaching of the Church.

tornpage wrote:It is rather like the understanding of one who believes in fact that the faith of Peter will never fail, and that no truly elected pope can be a heretic. This does not cancel out the truth that a heretical pope would not be a true pope. One might accept that as truth and nonetheless believe in a "necessity of infallibility" - pursuant to God's will and Providence - that no pope will become a heretic.

Interesting analogy; though we should qualify it by recognizing these important distinctions: While the Magisterium is on record as having taught “implicit faith”, she has never taught that the Pope is capable of losing the Catholic Faith through obstinate heresy. Neither did our Lord declare that He will abide in no man who loves the Father unless he has an explicit faith in Him. With that said, the “necessity of infallibility” analogy to the never-failing-faith of Peter has merit; but, like all such arguments, it does not rise above the level of opinion.

A more relevant example where “necessity of infallibility” is backed by dogma might be the Church’s dogmatic teaching that no one can persevere in grace without the gift of persevering grace. Does this mean that sanctifying grace is not sufficient for salvation, meaning it is deficient in its ability to save? No, the sanctified are “infallibly” assured of the grace to persevere so long as they do not turn their wills against God and do not fail to pray for the grace to persevere. Like the never-failing faith of Peter, God will keep His promise by fortifying the will with the grace to persevere in faith and, for the elect, in sanctity (charity).

To argue that God might withhold the grace to persevere in a sanctified soul who prays for this grace (because it is NOT His particular will that this soul be saved) is a total abuse and depravity of Augustinian doctrine. Sorry for the digression.

tornpage wrote:I feel the same way about baptism of desire and implicit faith (as they are defined). I do not believe the saving faith, nor the necessary baptism by grace, is achieved in fact without explicit faith in Christ. I accept the Church's teaching on baptism of desire and even on "implicit faith" (which means I must believe that the Church does not teach that some in fact are saved without explicit faith in Christ) as truths, but do not believe that any man in fact achieves salvation by meeting those conditions without explicit faith.

This is my understanding, and I believe it does not violate any teaching of the Church.

Agreed, I think ... but you threw me with the double negative. Can you qualify “I accept the Church's teaching on … ‘implicit faith’ (which means I must believe that the Church does not teach that some in fact are saved without explicit faith in Christ) as truths”?

Said positively, acceptance of “implicit faith” means you must believe that the Church teaches that some in fact are saved with an explicit faith in Christ?

Huh?

Why do you equate or limit the application of the salvific efficacy of the Blood of Christ to an explicit faith in the Mysteries of Christ? The Holy Ghost is not free to apply the merit of His Blood to those who love God (and our Lord, at least implicitly) with their whole hearts and seek only to do His will?

I'm not interested in pursuing "why" now because it's really a red herring. I'll try to be brief and focus the issue, as I have attempted to do repeatedly since we've been discussing this.

Lud - correctly I believe - characterized St. Thomas's belief regarding "explicit faith" as being a "necessity of infallibility," such that:

God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

The Haydock commentary in my signature (below) explicitly says the same thing.

I believe the same thing. You always focus on certain turns of phrase of mine, such as my describing my shared belief with St. Thomas as a "necessity in fact," to distract from the issue. I think it's clear from my post that I'm using "necessity of fact" in the sense of a "necessity of infallibility," and not in the sense that a man could not be justified without explicit faith as a theological or metaphysical possibility: God is not bound by the sacraments, and He is not bound to save only those with explicit faith.

Now here's the point I've belabored over the last month: if the synchronically universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church teaches in fact that some are saved after "the coming of Christ" (Haydock commentary) without explicit faith in Christ, then the belief of St. Thomas, me and others that no is is saved after the coming of Christ without explicit faith is wrong - or the magisterium is wrong.

This is why I've tried to pin down a clear understanding as to whether the Church teaches in fact that some are saved without explicit faith. If the Church doesn't teach that that happens in fact, no problem. If it does, big problem.

I hope that's clear enough.

tornpage wrote:
I feel the same way about baptism of desire and implicit faith (as they are defined). I do not believe the saving faith, nor the necessary baptism by grace, is achieved in fact without explicit faith in Christ. I accept the Church's teaching on baptism of desire and even on "implicit faith" (which means I must believe that the Church does not teach that some in fact are saved without explicit faith in Christ) as truths, but do not believe that any man in fact achieves salvation by meeting those conditions without explicit faith.

This is my understanding, and I believe it does not violate any teaching of the Church.

Agreed, I think ... but you threw me with the double negative. Can you qualify “I accept the Church's teaching on … ‘implicit faith’ (which means I must believe that the Church does not teach that some in fact are saved without explicit faith in Christ) as truths”?

Said positively, acceptance of “implicit faith” means you must believe that the Church teaches that some in fact are saved with an explicit faith in Christ?

Huh?

Let me clarify. I am saying I do not understand the Church's statements - in the Catechism, in the CCC, in the teachings of JPII, etc. - as teaching that some in fact are saved now while dying without explicit faith. I understand the Church to be saying that if one were to do all that one can in terms of loving, seeking, believing and serving God, and were to exit this life in such a state without explicit faith, of course a just and merciful God would save such a person. I agree - of course, this is simple justice. However, I do not believe that in fact this happens, because any such person will come to explicit faith according to God's infallible will, intent and design.

So if the Church teaches that this happens in fact, I am wrong, St. Thomas is wrong, the Haydock commentary is wrong . . . or the Church is wrong.

I see no other answer or alternative. If you know of one, please tell me. This is what I have been trying to understand for the last month.

Actually, the language in my signature line from the Haydock commentary is stronger than merely saying that explicit faith in Christ is a "necessity of infallibility":

Haydock Commentary on Romans 3:20 et seq.

Now, at the coming of Christ, the justice of God, that is, the justice by which he made others just, and justified them, cannot be had without faith in Christ, and by the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, whom God hath proposed to all, both Gentiles and Jews, as a sacrifice of propitiation for the sins of all mankind, by faith in his blood; that is, by believing in him, who shed his blood and died for us on the cross.

MRyan,

Seems to me you must have an issue with the Haydock Commentary for saying that justification, after the coming of Christ, "cannot be had without faith in Christ."

Yes?

Tornpage wrote:
Let me clarify. I am saying I do not understand the Church's statements - in the Catechism, in the CCC, in the teachings of JPII, etc. - as teaching that some in fact are saved now while dying without explicit faith. I understand the Church to be saying that if one were to do all that one can in terms of loving, seeking, believing and serving God, and were to exit this life in such a state without explicit faith, of course a just and merciful God would save such a person. I agree - of course, this is simple justice. However, I do not believe that in fact this happens, because any such person will come to explicit faith according to God's infallible will, intent and design.

So if the Church teaches that this happens in fact, I am wrong, St. Thomas is wrong, the Haydock commentary is wrong . . . or the Church is wrong.

MRyan is unlikely to give you a Yea or Nay answer concerning explicit faith as a necessity. He will go round the block 5 or 6 times and take every side street along the way and still not arrive at a destination. Won't you Mike?

The fact is however, we must take the CCC meaning, not as we interpret it, but rather the same way the authors meant it to be interpreted. How do we know which way they understand it? We can tell this by the way the Church applies its teachings. Jews are no longer required to convert or even be proselytised and all non-Christian religions are are on the road to salvation. I don't beleve I'm making this up. Do you?

columba wrote:

Tornpage wrote:
Let me clarify. I am saying I do not understand the Church's statements - in the Catechism, in the CCC, in the teachings of JPII, etc. - as teaching that some in fact are saved now while dying without explicit faith. I understand the Church to be saying that if one were to do all that one can in terms of loving, seeking, believing and serving God, and were to exit this life in such a state without explicit faith, of course a just and merciful God would save such a person. I agree - of course, this is simple justice. However, I do not believe that in fact this happens, because any such person will come to explicit faith according to God's infallible will, intent and design.

So if the Church teaches that this happens in fact, I am wrong, St. Thomas is wrong, the Haydock commentary is wrong . . . or the Church is wrong.

MRyan is unlikely to give you a Yea or Nay answer concerning explicit faith as a necessity. He will go round the block 5 or 6 times and take every side street along the way and still not arrive at a destination. Won't you Mike?

Columba, you should know better than to think that you can answer for me, given your propensity for blatant and consistent misrepresentation. I guess you can't help yourself.

The answer is "no", precisely as the Church presents the teaching. Was that direct enough for you? Do you see any "side streets" and did I "go around the block 5 or 6 times"? What part of "no" do you not understand?

Is the Church “wrong” to allow Catholics to believe that our Lord will supply the sacrament of Baptism to each of His elect without fail; in this life or in the next (through “miraculous” means)? Of course not; so why would it be “wrong” to hold that our Lord will reveal the mysteries of Christ to each of His elect before (or immediately after) death?

To your point, Tornpage, it is only “wrong” when the Church and the Pope are accused of teaching “error” through the Papal Ordinary Magisterium on a matter of salvation to the universal Church. That would not be "error", it would be more accurately defined as "heresy".

Wait, is that your point? There's a silly sub-forum for that - so I trust we won't go there on this thread.

What neither of you will admit is that the Church has NEVER defined that an explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation. If she had so defined it, she would have condemned the teachings of the theologians who have been teaching that this point of doctrine has always remained “open”, and have been openly teaching the possibility of “implicit faith” for some 500 years (to include the approved theological schools, and the approved Theology Manuals).

And of course, if she had so defined it, she would only be condemning herself for teaching the same doctrine in a Papal Encyclical and her CCC; not to mention the strong suggestion of this teaching by Pope Pius IX, where it is believed the true development of this doctrine first took explicit magisterial form.

In fact, that "implicit faith" was the intended sense of Pope Pius IX was confirmed by "the authority of the theologians of the Vatican Council", as well as "the councilor authorities" responsible for "the two pertinent documents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance among non-Catholics", which "were quoted in extensor in the Acts" of VCI (Fr. Hardon)

But, more to the point, the last I checked the Church is not in the business of proposing heretical doctrines to the universal Church through her authoritative ordinary papal magisterium, but what the hell do I know?

And no, Tornpage, I don’t have any problem whatsoever with St. Thomas or with Haydock; for Faith in Christ is and always has been absolutely necessary for salvation, but only the Church has the authority to definitively “settle” the matter of “implicit faith”; and she seems to want to come down in favor of the body of theologians who taught the latter.

And golly, the Church is still there; and the Holy See remains free from the stain of error (de fide).

To your point, Tornpage, it is only “wrong” when the Church and the Pope are accused of teaching “error” through the Papal Ordinary Magisterium on a matter of salvation to the universal Church. That would not be "error", it would be more accurately defined as "heresy".

Wait, is that your point? There's a silly sub-forum for that - so I trust we won't go there on this thread.

My point? It was simply honest inquiry. If you ask me, you're scared to death of this question.

If the Church in fact teaches that some are in fact saved by "implicit faith," then the belief that all come to an explicit faith in Christ before death is false. Period. Or else the Church is wrong for saying that some are saved by an "implicit faith" in Christ. No, wait. The Church can't merely be "wrong" about that: the Church is in heresy on this point if it's wrong. Thanks for the clarification on that point. But I'd rather an acknowledgment of the proposed contradiction, like, a) it's not a contradiction (good luck with that), or b) it is, and the Church is right, and you're wrong and your belief contra is therefore, well, not being right, WRONG; or . . . take it to the sede forum.

What neither of you will admit is that the Church has NEVER defined that an explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation.

Nice manuever, but irrelevant.

Let's try this AGAIN: I believe that no one in fact is saved without explicit faith in Christ before death. The Church teaches that some are in fact saved without explicit faith in Christ before death. Hmmm. Only one of these propositions can be right, correct, true. The other is wrong.

You therefore say I'm allowed to believe in something false. Wow. Neat. I guess it's sort of like I'm allowed to believe in Santa Clause. Hey, it ain't true - but it makes me feel good, and the Church allows me to believe this particular error. Which isn't "error, it's . . . well, it's . . . it's a healthy belief choice; a permissible diet.

By golly, I think I've got it.

But I don't think calling the elephant in the room a vase that the Church allows us to fill with flowers to feel good is the route to go. But, hey, if you're comfortable with it . . . whatever.

And I'll post this in whatever forum I please.

Thanks a bunch.

Columba,

The fact is however, we must take the CCC meaning, not as we interpret it, but rather the same way the authors meant it to be interpreted. How do we know which way they understand it? We can tell this by the way the Church applies its teachings. Jews are no longer required to convert or even be proselytised and all non-Christian religions are are on the road to salvation. I don't beleve I'm making this up. Do you?

Actions are not teachings. Peter's actions at Antioch did not implicate the Church's indefectibility; he did not "teach" error at Antioch. There may be enough ambiguity in the teaching regarding other religions that there may not be a contradiction between my belief in the necessity of explicit faith before death and what the Church truly and definitively teaches. False implications and suggestions do not equal a contradiction.

If there is a contradiction, I must either abandon my belief in the explicit faith of all the elect since the "coming of Christ" (Haydock commentary) - since it would be wrong - or reject the Church's teaching.

I was hoping to get help on this from MRyan, but he's more interested in blustering about any whiff of suggestion that the Church is wrong, even if posed in a question. Of course, in a continuing effort to avoid the question, MRyan will probably refer to my calling the Church's position a "heresy" previously - anything to distract and avoid the question, right?

Either I am wrong or the Church is wrong on explicit faith. Or in fact there is no contradiction between my belief and the Church's teachings regarding explicit faith. But I don't see that as possible: if someone is saved without X, saying no one is saved without X is wrong.

You will agree with me that this is not a game: we don't want to be wrong, and won't accept falsity on such a question.

This is the elephant in the room that you and I see, but that MRyan avoids.

Leaving aside the posibility of implicit faith being salvific and the consequent implication that it must also include an implicit desire for Baptism; What about having no faith in Christ at all, neither implicit nor explicit as the Jews.
They explicitly reject Christ and in so doing remove any implicit faith which (if it existed) would be contrary to their free will. They however, according to present Church teaching can find salvation within their current state of rejection of Christ.
Why then should Church teaching be taken to the sede sub forum?

Columba,

They explicitly reject Christ and in so doing remove any implicit faith

I agree.

They however, according to present Church teaching can find salvation within their current state of rejection of Christ.

Not sure on that. That is certainly the "suggestion" and "implication." But I would hesitate to call it a teaching. I am trying to avoid that and be honest. And so far I think I might be able to. But I'm not sure.

You are correct Tornpage. I (like you) contrary to what Mike thinks, do not wish or desire the present leadership of the Church to be wrong. I only see contradictions and wish them to be resolved logically which in some circumstances seems impossible (logically impossible that is) but I will continue to seek answers that hold some water and reject the contradictory terms in favor of what I've always believed til such times as they are reconciled in a plausable way.

BTW. The teaching on the jews by Pope Benedict was in word, not deed.

Well, tornpage, I’m sorry you thought I was going to be able to help you with this; though I thought the same thing, even if I knew it would be a challenge. But I gave it a decent shot and thought my arguments and presentation of Church teaching, with the requisite theological details and background, sound. You obviously disagree as we appear to be back to square one.

tornpage wrote: My point? It was simply honest inquiry. If you ask me, you're scared to death of this question.

You should know better than that, and I think you do. But you are to one who appears to be afraid of this question, and it has become somewhat of an obsession with you. At this point, I don’t even know what you want.

tornpage wrote: Let’s try this AGAIN: I believe that no one in fact is saved without explicit faith in Christ before death. The Church teaches that some are in fact saved without explicit faith in Christ before death. Hmmm. Only one of these propositions can be right, correct, true. The other is wrong.

OK, let’s try this AGAIN. The Church does not teach that some are IN FACT saved without an explicit faith in Christ; she says they may be or “can be saved” by the divine light of grace even without an explicit faith in Christ. In fact, nowhere does she use the certain language of the Catechism in its explicit teaching on baptism of desire where it says “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”

And neither does she say anywhere that “the Church has always held the firm conviction that those” who are “ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”.

The Church has not always held this as a firm conviction, because it was only implicit in her body of teaching and would not begin to really develop until the 16th century.

Now, if you want to frame this into “right” and “wrong”, you are wrong if you accuse the Church of error for teaching that “‘the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (CCC, 1260)

The game you insist on playing, that goes “either St. Thomas was wrong, or the Church is wrong”, is irrelevant because St. Thomas could not possibly have been wrong on a teaching that remained “open”. And nowhere did St. Thomas suggest that the teaching was closed.

In fact, Feeneyites have always accused St. Thomas of being inconsistent; well, now the respective teachings are consistent! See, the magisterium is useful after all; but now Feeneyites are even less happy; they preferred "inconsistency".

Theologians and the Church used the same theological principles of St. Thomas to extend the theology behind baptism of desire to implicit faith, even if St. Thomas did not reach the same conclusion. The Church simply affirms the development of the Thomistic doctrine as taught by the latter theologians, such as the renowned Thomist Fr. Garrou-Lagrange.

If it pleases you to frame this as a “St. Thomas was wrong” issue; then go right ahead, if that what floats your boat.

Here, let me help with that: St. Thomas was “wrong”; the Church teaches that one may be saved before coming to an explicit faith in Christ. It’s that simple.

Of course, the Church has not defined it, and it remains open to further reform and explication; but she does teach the doctrine as an authentic possibility through her authoritative ordinary magisterium.

And nowhere does the Church suggest that you are not allowed to believe that all such souls will come to an explicit faith before passing. As I said on more than one occasion, however, when considering the teaching of explicit faith by internal inspiration, even upon passing (what may only appear to be “death”), I don’t see what the big deal is; I really don’t, since every single soul in heaven enjoys an explicit faith in the Pascal Mystery.

What more do you want?

And feel free to post your response wherever you like!