Session 6 Chater 4 revelation

Then he should correct himself. He states this himself:

1. I have not found any father of the Church who taught that there was an apostolic tradition favoring a saving efficacy of a baptism of desire. If anyone can supply me with quotes indicating otherwise, I will correct my assertion.

So, let him correct himself. I await his reply.

MRyan wrote:Good luck in being accepted as a Third Order M.I.C.M.

If you wish to argue that Br. Andre's, Br. David Mary's and Br. Michael's statements on the "official" position of the St. Benedict Center, which are consistent with the "polemical" teaching of Fr. Feeney, are also of the same "polemical" sort that cannot be taken at face value (such that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are actually efficacious towards salvation, despite the "polemic" to the contrary), it would not surprise me you would spin such an argument; but I take their stated position "as it is written"; and until that "hard-line" position is amended, I will consider it heterodox.

That you do not seem to be concerned with the "hard-line" position of the St. Benedict Center, and that of your future superior, is what is troubling; but I am not in your shoes, and never will be.

If they have deviated from the Faith, they have done far less than the present Popes and their modernist theologians who say that we "can have hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism." Find that one in Lombard!! (Oh, you stopped quoting him above on that subject.)

Jehanne wrote:
Your posting of Master Lombard’s work only solidifies my position.

Of course it does.

Seriously, I think we're done ... why don't you give it a rest; I can't respond to this.

I just saw you last post as I posted this ... go pound sand.

Yeah, you say that it is "de fide" that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are individuals suffering in Purgatory, due to their own venial sins, but who would have escaped Purgatory, at least in part, if they had died with Baptism, but since they had the misfortune to die without Baptism, they have to suffer in Purgatory, and as you say, we must believe that there are such individuals. How many, by the way? One? Million? Billion? What's the "magic" number for orthodoxy?

Jehanne wrote:Yeah, you say that it is "de fide" that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are individuals suffering in Purgatory, due to their own venial sins, but who would have escaped Purgatory, at least in part, if they had died with Baptism, but since they had the misfortune to die without Baptism, they have to suffer in Purgatory, and as you say, we must believe that there are such individuals. How many, by the way? One? Million? Billion? What's the "magic" number for orthodoxy?

So says the father of lies.

MRyan wrote:

St. Aquinas’s teaching on the debt of temporal punishments is not de fide, and no one said it was. However, I told you that it would be rash to dispute his teachings when the Church has not in any way modified or corrected his doctrine.

Peter Lombard provides some additional context:

Book IV, Part II, V. What is the profit of baptism to those who come with faith; and VII. Of what thing (res) the baptism, which a just person receives, may be the sacrament.

… To this we can rightly reply that they [those who are already sanctified by the Spirit, and come to baptism with faith and charity, what baptism confers on them] are certainly justified by faith and contrition, that is, purged from the stain of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment, but as yet they are held to temporal satisfaction, by which penitents are bound in the Church. When however they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from their sins, if they have committed any in the interim after conversion, and are absolved from satisfaction … If someone asks of that thing that baptism may be a sacrament,[sacrament in the sense of sign] which is given to one already righteous, we may say that it is a sacrament of that which has preceded it, that is, of the remission already granted through faith, and of the remission of temporal punishment of sin, if any has been committed in the interim, and of the newness of life and of all grace there offered.

Jehanne, knock it off … I’m getting tired of your BS.

MRyan wrote:

MRyan wrote:http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html#comment-7690

I left a comment/rebuttal - with the source. Let's see if Mr. Kelly responds.

My comments are "awaiting moderation". I'm sure Mr. Kelly will want to verify the source I provided and read the citations from Book IV for himself before responding.

Despite my profound disappointment, I know Brian Kelly well enough to trust that he will amend his article, and/or offer a retraction once he realizes that his assumptions he had about the teachings of Peter Lombard are simply and categorically false.

Brian Kelly responded by admitting his error in failing to double-check his St. Benedict Center source, and by amending his article.

Someone also posted an invitation to this pro-St. Benedict Center forum ...

Sigh. This is a pro-St. Benedict Center forum, so says the man who runs it.

Brian Kelly made an error, so what? So did Albert Einstein, on more than one occasion. Still, do I believe that the One and Triune God would allow a sincere, faith-filled catechumen to suffer in Purgatory as a consequence of that person's own venial sins when that person could have has his/her temporal punishment completely remitted through the actual reception of sacramental Baptism? No, I do not, but I admit that I could be wrong; always have.

Sometimes, Jehanne, it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Jehanne wrote:Sigh. This is a pro-St. Benedict Center forum, so says the man who runs it.

Sigh. No kidding? You need to lighten-up; the smiley face was more for the benefit of the person who made the invite to our forum on the St. Benedict Center website, who also happens to be a member of this forum and even, on occasion, agrees with me (strange as that might sound). As you can see, there are no takers ... probably because I am so “mean”; wouldn’t you agree?

Jehanne wrote:Brian Kelly made an error, so what? So did Albert Einstein, on more than one occasion.

So what? So his triple assertion that baptism of desire is nowhere to be found in the Sentences of Peter Lombard is demonstrably false; and thus, the speculative conclusions derived from it are entirely spurious.

It is one thing to make a factual error; it is quite another to use that error (without any fact checking) as a springboard for building a case against the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire by suggesting that St. Thomas Aquinas taught baptism of desire but ignored the FACT that “Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later”, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Kelly also stated that “The Sentences would continue to be the theology textbook for all Catholic universities until the Summa Theologica gradually replaced it in the seventeenth century” and that “for almost five centuries, it was a standard requirement for a theology degree to write a commentary of the famous Sentences", thereby suggesting there is a centuries long tradition for baptism of desire that totally ignores the FACT that “Baptism of desire is not found in [this] most respected theology book."

Kelly also used his error to suggest that Lombard’s alleged silence was due to the fact that he studied under Abelard and “Abelard’s specific rejection of baptism of desire in his Theologia Christiana … prompted Hugh St. Victor”, who clearly taught baptism of desire, “to write to Saint Bernard for his opinion”, and that “These names have been brought up to highlight the fact that Bishop Lombard’s Collection of authoritative teachings and Commentary on theology makes no mention of baptism of desire in his treatment of the first sacrament.”

Simple factual error?

I was not aware that Einstein erroneously denied a fact of science by denying that one of his peers, in “the most respected book” of science in his time, taught a specific fact of science, and then built a spurious scientific theory around his erroneous but easily verifiable fact.

To err is human, but to mistakenly run and to build a case around the opposite of an easily verifiable fact as if it were the Gospel truth (while morally excusable) is only slightly more egregious (from a scholarly and factual standpoint) than presenting out-of context citations from the Doctors, saints and theologians as if they were opposed to baptism of blood and baptism of desire, when nothing could be further from the truth (e.g., The Only Begotten is filled with such misleading citations).

While I appreciate the candor of Brian Kelly in admitting to and amending his error (and predicted he would do so), I also noticed that he seemed to want to “excuse” his error in a form of special pleading when he said “In the many volleys back and forth with the SSPX and others who have written against not only our position on baptism but the doctrine of salvation itself no theologians ever cited the Sentences on the issue.”

In other words, he seems to be saying why was this fact not brought to my attention before, and the fact that the SSPX and others did not specifically mention the teaching of Master Lombard on baptism of desire is itself suspicious … when it has not been demonstrated that the St. Benedict Center ever used the false Peter Lombard argument in any of its official rebuttals to the official responses of the SSPX “and others” (though it may have), even if the legend was firmly entrenched in Feeneyite lore.

Those who point out the errors of Feeneyites are forever being challenged with proving a negative.

And never mind that “our position on baptism” is not only inconsistent, but Mr. Kelly does not seem to hold the “official” heterodox position of the St. Benedict Center which does in fact deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Lastly, this exercise only affirms the teaching of the Council of Florence when she declared that "it accepts and embraces” the "common doctrines … according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”.

In other words, the Church also accepts the “true understanding” of baptism of blood and baptism of desire “as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, represented by such luminaries as Master Lombard, Hugh St. Victor, St. Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine and all of “the doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools” who not only consistently taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire in the schools at the time of Florence, but are of one mind with the Church since at least the Council of Trent.

Your attempt, Jehanne, at suggesting that the Council of Florence is actually referring to the modern opinion of Fr. Rahner that Augustine “changed” his opinion, or to the specifically discredited opinion of Peter Abelard (discredited by his peers), is ridiculous, but par for the course.

Jehanne wrote:

As Brian points out, Saint Thomas made a few historical errors, so Saint Thomas hardly "knew" Saint Augustine. However, if it could be shown that I (and Brian) are misreading Saint Augustine, then I will be happy to withdraw my position.

You are not only misreading St. Augustine, you make it appear as if St. Aquinas did not "know" St. Augustine from the perspective of being as familiar with Augustine's writings as some of the modern scholars, who also made their own factual errors, and you even make it appear that you were already familiar with (and accepted) Master Lombard’s true teaching on baptism of desire, when we both know you had no idea that he taught the doctrine. If you did know, the fact that you intentionally posted a link to an article by someone you respect from the St. Benedict Center, and remained silent about a major “historical error” when you knew the truth, is inexcusable.

And we also know that you would be no closer to “withdrawing your position” than if you discovered that your favorite scholar (Fr. Rahner) is simply wrong in his unsubstantiated opinion that Augustine changed his opinion, and changed his opinion in his “later” anti-Pelagian period; with the latter “fact” being demonstrably false.

IMHO, Brian Kelly’s primary assertion that Augustine “changed” his position on baptism of desire, and his suggestion that the teaching of baptism of desire throughout the ages is more legend than fact, are about as credible as his assertion that “Bishop Lombard’s Collection of authoritative teachings and Commentary on theology makes no mention of baptism of desire in his treatment of the first sacrament.”

You should have just left it alone; though I appreciate all the attention you are giving it.

I wrote:

IMHO, Brian Kelly’s primary assertion that Augustine “changed” his position on baptism of desire, and his suggestion that the teaching of baptism of desire throughout the ages is more legend than fact, are about as credible as his assertion that “Bishop Lombard’s Collection of authoritative teachings and Commentary on theology makes no mention of baptism of desire in his treatment of the first sacrament.

I should add that the non-credibility of his arguments extends to his bizarre assertion that “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.’”

Again, baptism of desire, according to Brian Kelly, is NOT the teaching of “the Magisterium of the Church.”

This wholly gratuitous and strikingly bizarre assertion is even worse than his mistaken assertion (now corrected) that “Baptism of desire is not found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later”.

I can’t even begin to unravel the thought process behind such an assertion; except to state what is clearly implied, that the Magisterium “teaches” only when it makes solemnly and infallibly defined, or definitive, pronouncements -- so perhaps Jehanne, who agrees with Brian Kelly and with Peter Lombard, would like to defend it.

Meanwhile, here are some additional rebuttals to the comments of Brian Kelly:

3. There is no speculation concerning baptism of desire in Saint Ambrose’s definitive writing on the sacraments, as in De Mysteriis.

This is false; as Fr. Jurgens states in his The Faith of the Early Fathers, for not only did St. Ambrose explain in his Oration “Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian” that “in the desire for it, Valentinian had the Sacrament itself” (St. Ambrose says "His devotedness and intention washed him."); but Ambrose also leaves the question open to further speculation in his “definitive writing” and book Abraham (a combination of two books; one for the Catechumen, and one for the Baptized) where he says:

”Unless a man be born again ... No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they have the honor of the kingdom."

Note 5 by Jurgens explains: "The present sentence makes it clear he means that the Scriptural utterance expresses no exception; he does not know whether or not some logical exception, e.g. state of infancy or actual impossibility or non-culpable ignorance, may have been presumed and left unexpressed."

Brian Kelly wrote: Four quick points: 1) No one supportive of Saint Benedict Center would venture to assume that they would know the mind of Saint Ambrose better than Saint Augustine. That is absurd.

Really; as absurd as suggesting that “No one supportive of Saint Benedict Center would venture to assume that they would know the mind of Saint Augustine better than Saint Aquinas”? And yet, we are led to believe that both Master Lombard and St. Aquinas either did not know of, or totally ignored the alleged “change” in position in the mind of St. Augustine in his “later” anti-Pelagian writings.

Sure, that will fly.

4. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, eastern doctor of the Church, explicitly rejected the idea of a baptism in desire.

To quote Brian Kelly, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur (What is gratuitously asserted, is gratuitously denied).” Kelly simply ignores the context of the Oration on the Holy Lights by Saint Gregory Nazianzen. “In the full text (RJ 1012)”, as Fr. Most explains:

St. Gregory speaks of three classes of persons who are not baptized: (1) "Some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked." These will be punished, he says. (2) "Others know and honor the gift, but delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire." These will be punished. If they desired Baptism, but failed to get it by their own fault, their desire will not help them. (3) "The third group will be neither glorified nor punished by the Just Judge: for though unsealed [not baptized] they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as persons who have suffered a loss." Unbaptized infants come in this third category. He speaks of the Just Judge, because a Just Judge would not punish those who are not wicked, i.e., unbaptized infants.

In “Baptism and the Baptism of Desire”, Raymond Taouk also attests to the fact that "the Doctrine that Baptism of Water may be replaced by the Baptism of desire or by Baptism of Blood is not, as is some times supposed, a recent development of doctrine, it is taught for instance by St. Gregory Nazianzen in a sermon preached in 381,[Orat. 39, In Sancta Lumina, 17; P.G. 35; 356] where mention is made of the Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears.”

In his The Consolation of Death. St Gregory writes: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”

The context is clear. And, as Elisa posted:

St. Gregory Nazianzen – funeral oration for his father - even says that there are many who belong to the Church who are not visibly within her:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.x.html

“6. Even before he was of our fold, he was ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body, so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they possess”.

Also St. Gregory of Nazianzen enumerates various forms of Baptism, including 1-the Jews of water, 2-John’s water and repentance, 3-Jesus’ Spirit, 4-blood and 5-tears/repentance. Numbers 3 and 5 are specific to baptism of desire.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

Kelly, again:

Saint Bernard used the authorities of Saints Augustine and Ambrose to support his position. Had he had more information on their more mature or more definitive positions on the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism, then, I believe that this great saint would not have cited either of “these two pillars” as an authority favoring baptism of desire.

In other words, if St. Bernard had only ignored the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, as they were understood and taught by Master Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, and had ignored the fact that “Baptism of desire is promoted by Bishop Peter Lombard in his great work, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences, which text Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later. (Book IV, Part II) The Sentences would continue to be the theology textbook for all Catholic universities until the Summa Theologica gradually replaced it in the seventeenth century.”; perhaps the Saint would have had a better appreciation for “their more mature or more definitive positions on the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism.”

Funny that the only ones to have discovered “their more mature or more definitive positions” against baptism of desire (Kelly knows he has no legs to stand on against baptism of blood) are the “modern” scholars who seem to “know the mind of Saint Augustine” better than Saint Aquinas, Bishop Lombard, St. Bernard, Hugh of St. Victor, and Doctors Bellarmine and Liguori.

And these are the same modern scholars who do not even blink when they say St. Gregory of Nazianzen “explicitly rejected the idea of a baptism in desire”.

Brian Kelly, citing Father Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J., in his Outlines of Dogmatic Theology:

We have seen that in certain cases the existence of this unanimous consent can be inferred even where few writers have treated of the matter, and we must carefully distinguish between the witness of the Fathers to the tradition that they have received, and their judgment as critics, on points as to which, they have received no tradition. In the former case their unanimous consent is decisive; in the latter it is possible for more recent criticism to have discovered reasons for adopting a different view. (page 223)

Not that the teachings of the Master Lombard on Baptism of desire that are “found in the most respected theology book, written near the end of the twelfth century, The Four Books of Sentences of Bishop Peter Lombard, which work Saint Thomas studied and commented upon a century later”, would cause a true Feeneyite “to have discovered reasons for adopting a different view”; for this is just a momentary and irrelevant glitch in the Feeneyite arsenal of revisionist history, where not even “the Magisterium” actually teaches baptism of desire.

See, the Church's clear and explicit teaching is a myth based on the mistaken collective errors of the saints, Doctors and theologians who each failed to realize that St. Augustine actually “recanted” his potion on baptism of desire in “his later anti-Pelagian writings”, and that he and St. Ambrose came to a “more mature or more definitive position” on baptism of desire that positively excluded its possibility.

Not that the St. Benedict Center is claiming that modern scholars such as Frs. Rahner or Hoffman had a better understanding of the mind of Augustine than did Master Lombard, Hugh of St. Victor and St. Aquinas, or anything.

I mean, that would be “absurd”.

Mike,

Everything that you are writing is irrelevant to me. You've never even addressed my assertion, which I have posted ad nauseam:

The scholastics (Lombard, Aquinas, and everyone else) taught that a catechumen who sincerely desired Baptism yet, through no fault of his/her own and without any contempt of the Sacrament, died without Baptism and without being martyred for the Name of Christ would, as a consequence of that person's own venial sins, have to suffer some temporal punishment in Purgatory, punishment that would have been fully remitted upon the reception of Baptism, but such an individual would, eventually attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

I do not believe that the above scenario happens, ever. Let's say that some followers of Father Feeney were the first, in the history of Catholicism, to profess and believe that whomever the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life has, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

I am okay with that. Ours is hardly a "private" belief, because we have a website, don't we? Here are the Alexa totals for catholicism.org:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catholicism.org#

Unless you can demonstrate that it is "de fide" that we must believe that there are catechumens who would have had some or all of their temporal punishment forgiven through the actual reception of Baptism yet simply had the misfortune to die without it, then you've lost the argument with me. Anything beyond this is "theological hair splitting," which means that you are "pounding on open doors."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Everything that you are writing is irrelevant to me. You've never even addressed my assertion, which I have posted ad nauseam:

The scholastics (Lombard, Aquinas, and everyone else) taught that a catechumen who sincerely desired Baptism yet, through no fault of his/her own and without any contempt of the Sacrament, died without Baptism and without being martyred for the Name of Christ would, as a consequence of that person's own venial sins, have to suffer some temporal punishment in Purgatory, punishment that would have been fully remitted upon the reception of Baptism, but such an individual would, eventually attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

I do not believe that the above scenario happens, ever. Let's say that some followers of Father Feeney were the first, in the history of Catholicism, to profess and believe that whomever the One and Triune God has predestined to everlasting life has, without exception, been predestined by Him to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.

I am okay with that. Ours is hardly a "private" belief, because we have a website, don't we? Here are the Alexa totals for catholicism.org:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catholicism.org#

Unless you can demonstrate that it is "de fide" that we must believe that there are catechumens who would have had some or all of their temporal punishment forgiven through the actual reception of Baptism yet simply had the misfortune to die without it, then you've lost the argument with me. Anything beyond this is "theological hair splitting," which means that you are "pounding on open doors."

Jehanne, Of course its "irrelevant" to you, you simply cannot effectively respond.

But I’m glad that you find my rebuttals “irrelevant”, for now we have something in common; though we both know you lost this “debate” a long time ago with your rash and totally discredited claims that an implicit desire for baptism that does not become explicit is “formally heretical”, that the 1949 intervention and Letter of the Holy Office is also “formally heretical”, that baptism of blood and baptism of desire may in fact represent divinely revealed truths that are at the same time entirely meaningless since they are “null sets devoid of any human beings whatsoever”; that you say you agree with the official position of the St. Benedict Center on the non-salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, all the while claiming to accept the efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and we could go on and on with your hypocrisy and inanities.

However, when you totally ignore my responses to your hair-splitting take on St. Thomas’ teaching on temporal satisfaction, when you totally ignore my presentation of Master Lombard’s contextual teaching on the same subject, and when you actually accuse me of saying that “it is ‘de fide’ that we, as faithful Catholics, must believe that there are [non-baptized] individuals suffering in Purgatory, due to their own venial sins …” and ignore my clear prior rebuttal where I specifically said that St. Thomas’ teaching is NOT de fide, then we know what a dishonest actor you are who not only ignores my responses by alleging that I have not responded to your hair-splitting irrelevant and nonsensical “objections” to the teachings of the Angelic Doctor on temporal satisfaction, but who can’t even acknowledge his own egregiously false accusations against me.

If your entire irrelevant argument boils down to your personal problem with St. Thomas’s teaching on temporal satisfaction, and your entirely spurious, ridiculous and childish claim that I must somehow demonstrate that his teaching is “de fide” before you are obliged to accept it, than this is a total waste of time and only demonstrates how totally jaded is your understanding of this entire matter.

I would say that you are being obtuse, but that suggests a rational cognizance of the issues - and it is clear that you are incapable of projecting any intellectual understanding beyond your personal pet peeves framed and formed by a terrible ecclesiology.

If you represent the face of Feeneyism, then Feeneyism is in sad shape. No one cares what you “believe”, and if you think that by posting a link to “the Alexa totals for catholicism.org” somehow gives credibility to your childish bankrupt “private” theology, think again.

As I said, you should have left it alone.

Master Lombard and Saint Thomas' teachings on the "temporal satisfaction" on the part of those who die without Baptism is de fide; how in the World could you say that it is not de fide???

Are you saying that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism yet dies without it and without martyrdom does not go to Purgatory? Is this what you are saying?? Please, yes or no?

Jehanne wrote:Master Lombard and Saint Thomas' teachings on the "temporal satisfaction" on the part of those who die without Baptism is de fide; how in the World could you say that it is not de fide???

No, who in the World ever said that it is de fide that every soul who dies in a state of sanctification without the sacrament cannot have satisfied the debt of temporal punishment through a perfect charity?

Certainly not Aquinas; certainly not Lombard, certainly not the Church, and certainly not me.

So the question is: Where do you come up with this stuff?

Aquinas was simply drawing a distinction between complete satisfaction for all temporal punishments found in water baptism and martyrdom, and the likelihood of a debt still remaining for those who are sanctified without benefit of the sacrament, and Lombard went on to teach that the temporal punishment due to venial sins committed after sanctification (and prior to baptism) are fully satisfied in the sacrament.

Since baptism of blood is a more "perfect" form of baptism of desire, like the sacrament, it provides a complete satisfaction for all temporal punishments (according to the common opinion of the theologians), though this does NOT necessarily mean that a more perfect charity cannot be found in a non-martyr. In fact, we should be cautious in attributing such complete satisfaction to the efficacy of suffering or the shedding of blood, and not exclusively to the efficacy of the Blood Redemption that a martyr's suffering can only mimic.

Aquinas is only generalizing, and is not suggesting that his opinion is de fide. In fact, he also teaches that baptism of blood and baptism of desire both derive their efficacy from faith, and especially charity.

Jehanne wrote:
Are you saying that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism yet dies without it and without martyrdom does not go to Purgatory? Is this what you are saying?? Please, yes or no?

No. I am saying that IF he dies with a temporal debt still to be paid, he will go to Purgatory, just like any Baptized soul who has committed venial sins after his baptism which have not been fully satisfied.

Aquinas appears to assume that such a debt cannot be fully satisfied except by Baptism or martyrdom; and he might be right - but nothing "binds" us to accept his opinion as "de fide".

MRyan wrote:Aquinas appears to assume that such a debt cannot be fully satisfied except by Baptism or martyrdom; and he might be right - but nothing "binds" us to accept his opinion as "de fide".

Aquinas only "appears" to teach this, huh? So, Master Lombard was not clear enough for you:

V. What is the profit of baptism to those who come with faith.

We are often asked concerning those who are already sanctified by the Spirit, and come to baptism with faith and charity, what baptism confers on them. For it seems to offer them nothing, since they are already justified by faith and contrition, and their since are already remitted. – To this we can rightly reply that they are certainly justified by faith and contrition, that is, purged from the stain of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment, but as yet they are held to temporal satisfaction, by which penitents are bound in the Church. When however they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from their sins, if they have committed any in the interim after conversion, and are absolved from satisfaction; and helping grace and every virtue is increased in them, so that they can then be called new men. The incentive to sin is also lessened still more in them. Therefore Jerome [this passage is not found in Jerome] says that the faith, which makes them faithful, is given and nourished in the waters of baptism; because it is there given sometimes to one who does not have it yet, and again it is given to one who has it that he may have it more fully. [Matt. 25, 29] This we must also understand of others.

So, you're saying that the above text in bold is de fide, but the text that is underlined is not de fide. Am I correct here?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Aquinas appears to assume that such a debt cannot be fully satisfied except by Baptism or martyrdom; and he might be right - but nothing "binds" us to accept his opinion as "de fide".

Aquinas only "appears" to teach this, huh? So, Master Lombard was not clear enough for you:

I have no problem with the teaching of Aquinas and Lombard on temporal punishments; they are quite clear and I am not the one confused on what is de fide, and what is not -- you are.

Jehanne wrote:

V. What is the profit of baptism to those who come with faith.

We are often asked concerning those who are already sanctified by the Spirit, and come to baptism with faith and charity, what baptism confers on them. For it seems to offer them nothing, since they are already justified by faith and contrition, and their sins are already remitted. – To this we can rightly reply that they are certainly justified by faith and contrition, that is, purged from the stain of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment, but as yet they are held to temporal satisfaction, by which penitents are bound in the Church. When however they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from their sins, if they have committed any in the interim after conversion, and are absolved from satisfaction; and helping grace and every virtue is increased in them, so that they can then be called new men. The incentive to sin is also lessened still more in them. Therefore Jerome [this passage is not found in Jerome] says that the faith, which makes them faithful, is given and nourished in the waters of baptism; because it is there given sometimes to one who does not have it yet, and again it is given to one who has it that he may have it more fully. [Matt. 25, 29] This we must also understand of others.

So, you're saying that the above text in bold is de fide, but the text that is underlined is not de fide. Am I correct here?

That's exactly what I am saying; and what part of this do you not understand?

MRyan wrote:That's exactly what I am saying; and what part of this do you not understand?

Are you saying that this was the Council of Florence's "understanding" when they declared the following:

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. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

Or, the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179 which declared

"We believe with Peter Lombard..."

So, are you saying that the The Four Books of Sentences, which was used as the "standard textbook of Catholic theology" for five centuries contains theological errors, or that its successor, Saint Thomas' Summa, also contains theological errors? If so, could you provide us with a list of those errors?

To sum-up, you believe that all the scholastics were right about Baptism of Desire remitting the eternal punishment of sin but that all the scholastics were wrong about desire for baptism, in the absence of martyrdom, to remit the temporal punishment of Purgatory. Correct?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:That's exactly what I am saying; and what part of this do you not understand?

Are you saying that this was the Council of Florence's "understanding" when they declared the following:

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. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

Or, the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179 which declared

"We believe with Peter Lombard..."

So, are you saying that the The Four Books of Sentences, which was used as the "standard textbook of Catholic theology" for five centuries contains theological errors, or that its successor, Saint Thomas' Summa, also contains theological errors? If so, could you provide us with a list of those errors?

To sum-up, you believe that all the scholastics were right about Baptism of Desire remitting the eternal punishment of sin but that all the scholastics were wrong about desire for baptism, in the absence of martyrdom, to remit the temporal punishment of Purgatory. Correct?

This really is incredible.

When did I ever say that "all the scholastics were wrong about desire for baptism, in the absence of martyrdom, to remit the temporal punishment of Purgatory"?

Here's a newsflash; I never said or even suggested any such thing; and in fact told you that it would be rash to discount the teachings of Aquinas on temporal punishments.

But, in your warped Feeneyite closed and deluded mindset, an established non-revealed doctrine that is not de fide, must mean that the scholastics who taught the doctrine were are all wrong.

I know you will never grasp this, but have you ever asked yourself how a common undefined opinion of theologians can be "in error" when the Church has never rendered an authoritative, let alone a de fide magisterial decision on the common opinion? We should accept the teachings of Aquinas and Lombard on temporal punishments because the Church tells us we should, but she has never suggested that every one of their theological conclusions is "de fide", or that their teaching is complete.

And, as I said, nowhere did Aquinas or Lombard (or the Church) ever categorically deny the possibility that our Lord might remit all of the temporal punishments of a catechumen who dies with a "perfect" love of Christ, and would gladly suffer and shed his blood for the Faith if given the opportunity. As I also said, I can cite St. Aquinas to make such a case that the possibility remains open. And, since the Church has never magisterially intervened on the question, I can accept the teachings of Aquinas and Lombard in that same sense. There is no contradiction; and there is no "theological error" when the question has not been definitively settled. But it would indeed be "rash" to "reject" their teaching simply because it is not "de fide".

And your bankrupt ecclesiology is really on full display when you actually attempt to turn Florence and the 3rd Lateran Council against me by suggesting that every common opinion of the schools and theologians, and especially the theological conclusions of Peter Lombard, are all "de fide".

Jehanne, you obviously have a real problem with grasping even the simplest of basic theological concepts and basic Church teachings; and your obsessive penchant for clinging to your false ideas, and repeating them ad nauseum, as if you actually know what you are talking about, is quite the sad spectacle.

MRyan wrote:And, as I said, nowhere did Aquinas or Lombard (or the Church) ever categorically deny the possibility that our Lord might remit all of the temporal punishments of a catechumen who dies with a "perfect" love of Christ, and would gladly suffer and shed his blood for the Faith if given the opportunity.

And neither did they ever deny the possibility that "whomever the One and Triune God predestines to the eternal beatitude, His elect, are also predestined by Him (due to His Sovereignty, Providence, and Perfection) to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water, with no exceptions," which is all that I have ever asserted as possibly being true.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And, as I said, nowhere did Aquinas or Lombard (or the Church) ever categorically deny the possibility that our Lord might remit all of the temporal punishments of a catechumen who dies with a "perfect" love of Christ, and would gladly suffer and shed his blood for the Faith if given the opportunity.

And neither did they ever deny the possibility that "whomever the One and Triune God predestines to the eternal beatitude, His elect, are also predestined by Him (due to His Sovereignty, Providence, and Perfection) to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water, with no exceptions," which is all that I have ever asserted as possibly being true.

So now your agenda is finally revealed. After all of the false allegations, complete misrepresentations, misdirection and appalling theology, you simply want to say that it is possible that God will provide the sacrament to each of His elect, while ALSO telling us that baptism of blood and baptism of desire may in fact represent divinely revealed truths that are in reality “null sets devoid of any human beings whatsoever”.

And you attempt to compare the latter nonsense to the question of whether the Church teaches it is de fide that each and every sanctified soul who dies without baptism and without martyrdom has a temporal debt to be paid in Purgatory, when the Church has never officially or authoritatively rendered her judgment on the matter, while clearly suggesting that she accepts the teaching of Aquinas and Lombard – but leaves the question open for further development.

Only a Feeneyite would see a like comparison between the theological question of temporal punishments, and the Church's Magisterial teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

But wait, Brian Kelly, with whom you are in complete agreement, said that the Magisterium has never taught baptism of desire.

Whats' the matter, Jehanne, you can't find an adequate defense to such a bizarre statement? I think Columba agrees with that statement, but you?

Forgive me for trying to get this thread back on track, but your irrelevant distractions are quite annoying.

My "agenda" has been on my blog since April of this year and since I joined this board this past December. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M. stated the following:

"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.' Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of Father Feeney's "doctrinal crusade," is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; "my saint tops your saint" or "my commentator tops your commentator" is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."

Your position is basically that of the SSPX:

But Father Laisney, despite his posturing, does not really believe there is "no salvation outside the Church." Here is his final summary of his position: "The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is inseparably linked by the Church to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. It belongs to the very proper understanding of that dogma, so that if one denies it, he no longer holds the dogma in the same sense and the same words as the Church holds it." (11) This is just a tricky was of saying there is salvation outside the Church. He himself makes this abundantly clear on the last page of his book:

To which "Feeneyites" reply:

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

More here:

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

Jehanne wrote:My "agenda" has been on my blog since April of this year and since I joined this board this past December. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, M.I.C.M. stated the following:

"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.' Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of Father Feeney's "doctrinal crusade," is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr. Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with authoritative sources; "my saint tops your saint" or "my commentator tops your commentator" is a game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."

Here we go again. I suppose this is your way of defending BK’s assertion that the Magisterium has never taught baptism of desire.

You can’t defend it, so you punt.

But, I’m a good sport; so I’ll play the game.

Brother Thomas Mary Sennott simply dismisses the “authoritative sources” of the Magisterium on baptism of blood and baptism of desire as if the only teaching authority the St. Benedict Center will accept is from the “Solemn Magisterium” that MUST “define” baptism of blood and baptism of desire as articles of divine and Catholic faith before they are considered “authoritative”.

And of course, implicit in such heterodoxy is the notion that the “mere theological opinion” taught by the Magisterium on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is opposed to the “more authentic” teachings of the Solemn Magisterium which are alleged to deny the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire - which is complete rubbish. But it is rubbish that the St. Benedict Center couches in the language of “mere theological opinion”; while ignoring what the Magisterium actually teaches on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

So the St. Benedict Center accepts Trent’s dogmatic declaration on justification “by the desire thereof”, but denies that this same Justification is the true and fulfilled Justification (since the promulgation of the Gospel under the law of grace) that makes one an heir to the Kingdom in the grace of divine sonship. So in effect, the St. Benedict Center “reduces to a mere theological opinion” the Magisterial teaching of the Church and the common opinion of the saints, Doctors and schools that are unanimous in their teaching that baptism of blood and baptism of desire do in fact effect a true Justification that equips one for the Kingdom of God as a true heir.

Jehanne wrote:
Your position is basically that of the SSPX:

But Father Laisney, despite his posturing, does not really believe there is "no salvation outside the Church." Here is his final summary of his position: "The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is inseparably linked by the Church to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. It belongs to the very proper understanding of that dogma, so that if one denies it, he no longer holds the dogma in the same sense and the same words as the Church holds it." (11) This is just a tricky was of saying there is salvation outside the Church. He himself makes this abundantly clear on the last page of his book:

To which "Feeneyites" reply:

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

More here:

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

So now you “basically” accuse me of holding a heretical doctrine that says “there is salvation outside the Church”; but, like Fr. Laisney, I’m just very “tricky” about my denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, is that right?

Hey Jehanne, go pound sand.

I think you speak out of both sides of your mouth, and every time you cite an article by the St. Benedict Center, I’m calling you out for your duplicity as you desperately attempt to have it both ways.

I categorically reject that there is salvation outside the Church, and if you think you can make your specious accusation stick – give it a whirl, but know I'll come down on you hard if you if persist. Of course you will back off – you know such an accusation won’t stick; though you don't mind throwing it out there even if you can't back it up.

Your predictable and all-too-common default strategy of punting to this or that St. Benedict Center article simply won’t work and you should know better than to give me a wide opening to expose their errors, and especially their specific "official" heterodoxy that denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, both of which translate a faith an charity-filled soul into a true son of God and a true heir to the Kingdom.

Even Brian Kelly hints at his agreement with the “official position” when he states:

“The state of justification is the state of sanctifying grace. The Council did not define that a catechumen, unbaptized but justified, could be saved if he died in that state. This question, as a hypothetical possibility, was not raised at the Council.”

He clearly suggests that a state of sanctifying grace, even for one who dies in that state, may NOT be sufficient for salvation, which is pure heterodoxy.

He "recovers" by making it clear that:

“Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized.”

No problem; then why does he suggest his implicit support for the “official” St. Benedict Center position when he says that Trent “did not define that a catechumen, unbaptized but justified, could be saved if he died in that state”, as if, as he says, it is only a “a hypothetical possibility” that someone could be saved IF he died IN that state of grace, when the “hypothetical possibility” has nothing to do with the dogmatic fact that a state of grace at the time of death is a state of salvation, but only with the possibility that God would not allow this state of salvation to be “perfected” in water Baptism.

By citing Augustine (out of context) to suggest that some, such as catechumens of good faith and Cornelius, have only the seeds of true justification (“conceived” in justifying faith, but not yet re-born), Kelly only adds to the confusion when he then concedes that Fr. Laisney makes “a valid point” when he points to the “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”, and then Kelly adds, “However, again, I do not think it takes into proper consideration the dogma of the particular providence of God and the ‘fulfillment of all justice’ in sacramental baptism”.

We are once again left with the impression that there is dogmatic opposition between “the dogma of the particular providence of God” in “the ‘fulfillment of all justice’ in sacramental baptism” and the “truth” Kelly submits to “as I would a dogma of Faith” that “no one is lost who dies in the state of grace”.

Remember, Kelly said, “Trent did not define that a catechumen, unbaptized but justified, could be saved if he died in that state.” And why is it just a “hypothetical possibility” that “a catechumen, unbaptized but justified, could be saved if he died in that state”? Because this particular state of grace, Kelly leads us to believe, even for the unbaptized martyr, does not take into proper consideration the “fulfillment of all justice” that is allegedly found only in the sacrament of Baptism, and thus, it is not necessarily found in the fruit of the sacrament when it is impossible to receive.

And what Mr. Kelly only implies, the St. Benedict Center explicitly states in its “official” position which denies the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and clearly states that the justification dogmatically described by Trent in “the desire for it” cannot truly fulfill all justice since it cannot truly make one an heir to the Kingdom in the grace of divine sonship.

As I said, that is pure heterodoxy.

And that’s the problem with neo-Feeneyites who do not want to rock the “official” boat (position) of the St. Benedict Center, even when they must admit, in opposition to the official position, that anyone who dies in a state of grace is saved – period; for they only end up portraying what they say they accept as a “dogma” (sanctifying grace is a state of salvation for those who die in that state) only as a “hypothetical possibility” when they turn around and suggest it is NOT a true and fulfilled justification; meaning, it is NOT the gift of divine sonship that makes one a true heir to the Kingdom.

And that truth, Jehanne, is what you cannot handle. Your weak protest that you do not “read” the St. Benedict Center’s official position that way only means you do not know how to read; and/or what you do read is very selective.

And the latter is what Feeneyites are very good at; so you are in good company.

But only a Jehanne can read the true doctrine of Peter Lombard and say that his explicit teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire only confirms Jehanne's position that these same doctrines are meaningless "null sets" that do not apply to flesh and blood human beings.

And you want to be taken seriously? Hah!

You're argument is not with me; it's with others, so it's up to them to defend their position. I am not going to defend positions that I do not hold let alone have never held. Father Feeney, in the beginning, accepted Baptism of Blood (and by that, a perfect Baptism of Desire); only later on did he begin to speculate on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in Water. We've been down this road a million times:

1) Do I believe that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism and yet who is martyred in the Name of Christ and dies without Baptism will go straight to Paradise? Yes, absolutely.

2) Do I believe that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism and yet who is not martyred for Christ and dies without Baptism will go straight to Paradise? Not right away, but eventually.

3) Do I believe that scenarios #1 & #2 ever happen? No, but I admit that I could be wrong.

4) More to the point -- Can someone be saved who denies a dogma of the Catholic Faith and/or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff? No, absolutely not, although, repentance at "death's door" may be possible.

5) Do I ever pray with Protestants or with other heretics, attend their worship services, etc.? No, absolutely not. The same is true of the schismatic Orthodox, Jews, pagans, and infidels, etc.

"Feeneyism" is, principally, about #4 and #5, and if you knew your history, then you would know that. Such is the official position of the Saint Benedict Center and is also "the Magisterial teaching of the Church and the common opinion of the saints, Doctors and schools that are unanimous in their teaching that...it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." More here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html

I reject the 1949 Holy Office letter because I believe that it denies human free will:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absurdity-of-implicit-faith-part-1.html

Jehanne wrote:You're argument is not with me; it's with others, so it's up to them to defend their position. I am not going to defend positions that I do not hold let alone have never held. Father Feeney, in the beginning, accepted Baptism of Blood (and by that, a perfect Baptism of Desire); only later on did he begin to speculate on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in Water. We've been down this road a million times:

Let me remind you that the subject of this thread is Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, and began with columba’s private Protestant-like “revelation” of what Trent actually meant to declare, which private novel understanding (that Rasha agrees with!) is totally opposed to the understanding of the saints, Doctors and theologians, and is totally opposed to the Magisterial teachings of the Church.

If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion except by way of your incessant irrelevant responses to my posts (identifying the errors of columba’s private “revelation”, as well as identifying the errors of the private revelation of the St. Benedict Center on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire), then you should simply stay out of the discussion, or at least stop changing the subject and quit making this all about your irrelevant private beliefs.

In fact, you are the one who posted the link to Brian Kelly’s article in response to one of my posts, and we saw the results when I exposed his manifest errors – you now tell me to take it up with him since you cannot and/or will not defend his errors.

Is that how this is suppose to work – you respond with a specific linked article you say you agree with -- I rebut the specific errors therein, and you tell me to take it up with the author you cite as an authority for your position?

And, after debunking your manifest errors, I get the subject back on track by returning to the specific errors of the St. Benedict Center by demonstrating how BK’s arguments follow the same errant trajectory, even if only implicitly; you have the nerve to tell me that my argument is with “others” and not with you, and then proceed to tell me what those “others” actually present as their “official” position while IGNORING the errors of Kelly, and ignoring the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center on Session 6, Ch. 4 – the very subject of this thread?

You really do run this forum, no?

Jehanne wrote:
1) Do I believe that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism and yet who is martyred in the Name of Christ and dies without Baptism will go straight to Paradise? Yes, absolutely.

Really? Then perhaps you will explain to us how you reconcile your belief that “The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff)”, with the magisterial teaching of the Church (and that of St. Thomas) that this submission need not always be "explicit".

See, the Council of Constance did not declare what you allege; neither did St. Thomas Aquinas, and neither does the Church. We’ll get to that shortly.

Jehanne wrote:
2) Do I believe that a catechumen who sincerely desires Baptism and yet who is not martyred for Christ and dies without Baptism will go straight to Paradise? Not right away, but eventually.

So now, after making all of this irrelevant noise to the contrary, you concede that you agree with St. Thomas and with Peter Lombard on the temporal debt that remains to be satisfied by those who die sanctified in Christ without Baptism or martyrdom.

Jehanne wrote:
3) Do I believe that scenarios #1 & #2 ever happen? No, but I admit that I could be wrong.

Now that’s a sign of real humility; when a Catholic admits that he might be wrong about his novel and preposterous “null set” theory (as if the Church’s Magisterial teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is a meaningless theological hypothetical exercise that has no real meaning for flesh and blood human beings), and the doctors, saints, theologians and the Magisterium just might be correct because they believe that real objective circumstances and conditions exist in the drama of human salvation that necessitate these doctrines as means of salvation, but never apart from the Church or her divinely instrumental means of salvation, at least by desire.

And yes, Jehanne actually tried to compare the universally held, and Magisterially taught doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire to Bellarmine’s 5 hypothetical theses on the repercussions of having a pope actually fall from the Catholic Faith (hypothetically speaking). No wonder Jehanne failed to respond to my rebuttal to this absurd analogy.

Jehanne wrote:
4) More to the point -- Can someone be saved who denies a dogma of the Catholic Faith and/or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff? No, absolutely not, although, repentance at "death's door" may be possible.

More to the point, does the Church teach anything different? Are you making an accusation here?

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as an excusable “invincible ignorance”, for instance, when someone unintentionally denies a dogma of Faith, such as the Filioque, or if someone has an incorrect understanding of Papal Primacy because that person was brought up in that that belief system? I think that’s exactly what you are saying, and if so, spit it out, and be specific about how St. Augustine, who specifically teaches that such inculpable errors are forgiven by God, and how the Church, which teaches the same doctrine, are IN ERROR.

In other words, no one wants to hear about your “private beliefs”; so please tell us if and how the Church has erred in this matter.

Jehanne wrote:
5) Do I ever pray with Protestants or with other heretics, attend their worship services, etc.? No, absolutely not. The same is true of the schismatic Orthodox, Jews, pagans, and infidels, etc.

More gratuitous and irrelevant fluff (look at me, I’m a good Catholic!), with the clear implication that the Church has sanctioned, and her Popes have committed, cummuicatio in sacris with “heretics” and with “the schismatic Orthodox, Jews, pagans, and infidels, etc.”

Is there some sort of accusation here? If so, spit it out.

Jehanne wrote:
"Feeneyism" is, principally, about #4 and #5, and if you knew your history, then you would know that. Such is the official position of the Saint Benedict Center and is also "the Magisterial teaching of the Church and the common opinion of the saints, Doctors and schools that are unanimous in their teaching that...it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." More here:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html

Nonsense. Fenneyism is much more than that and you are once again engaged in the art of selective memory and selective interpretation while ignoring the entire thrust of this thread on the Church’s (and Trent’s) true understanding of Justification and my many posts highlighting the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center on the non-salvific efficacy of baptism of blood and baptism of desire – which is opposed to the Church’s own understanding.

Sorry, but I know the history of the St. Benedict Center better than you do, and I also have a better grasp of their teachings. You would like to pretend that the denial of baptism of blood and baptism of desire (as being salvific) is an irrelevant after-thought of Fr. Feeney (who once believed in these doctrines), while telling us the true battle is over the absolute necessity of “explicit” submission to the Roman Pontiff, and false sacrilegious “worship” (communicatio in sacris) with heretics, pagans, Jews, “etc”, thereby implying that the Catholic Church is guilty of these same “errors”.

When it comes to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Holy Office Letter of 1949, the one you “reject”, identified the real issue with the St. Benedict Center in its denial of the following teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Church):

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (1, Objection 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. And it has been said above (Question 68, Article 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Question 68, Article 2). (Summa Theologica III, Q. 73: Article 3. Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation? Objection 1.)

Did you catch that, Jehanne? “The reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body” and “the reality of the sacrament [unity of the mystical body] can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament”.

The “official” position of the St. Benedict Center rejects this doctrine, but don’t let that trouble you; you can decide for yourself what the Church teaches on salvation, all the while telling us what “we Feeneyites” believe, as if you believe the same doctrine. You don’t; though you want to have it both ways.

St. Thomas (and the Church) teaches quite specifically that “man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly” and “before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.”

And we can see these same teachings incorporated into the 1949 Holy Office Letter (the one you “reject”):

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

When “a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God”, the explicit “wish” (or desire) is a free act of the will, so to say that the Holy Office Letter denies human free will is simply false, and quite ignorant. But that is precisely what you allege:

I reject the 1949 Holy Office letter because I believe that it denies human free will:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/absurdity-of-implicit-faith-part-1.html

Sheer and utter ignorance.

Jehanne, you cannot, and will not, be taken seriously – not by anyone.

I don’t like going to your Blog, but I will in this instance just to demonstrate how far from Catholic thinking and a correct understanding of Magisterial teaching you really are.

The title of the article I will address is “Right-wing liberals and Unam Sanctam” and the entire thrust of your position can be summed up as follows:

Pope Boniface VIII's papal bull Unam Sanctam deserves some special consideration. The right-wing liberals would have us believe that Boniface's bull was nothing more than a papal response to a local political conflict with Philip IV, King of France. What they will not tell you is the following:

1) Nowhere in his papal bull does Pope Boniface ever mention the name of King Philip or the nation of France.

2) Pope Boniface begins his bull with these words, "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."

3) He concludes his bull with a quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle theologian, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

And tell us, Jehanne, if, when citing the Angelic Doctor, Pope Boniface VIII presents the dogma on the necessity “for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”, didn’t Boniface intend that the dogma is to be understood in the very same sense that St. Thomas taught it? If not, why would he cite the Angelic Doctor if he meant to present the dogma in a contrary sense?

And didn’t St. Thomas teach that a virtual or mental incorporation with the Church is possible for those who have only an implicit desire to enter the Church (because they do not know of its necessity)?

I bring this up, because here is where you really fall on your face, when you write:

7) The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff):

Condemned Error 41: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches. (Council of Constance)

This is an abysmally poor “scholarship”. I would call it “dishonest scholarship”, but I can only assume that you actually believe your own tripe.

Please show us where “Condemned Error 41 … infallibly declared the need for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff).” Where does the condemned error say that?

Who are you to “interpret” a condemned proposition to say something that not only did the Angelic Doctor NOT teach; but never did the Church ever teach such a pharisaical understanding. This is just one more example of one of your juvenile logical fallacies taken to an absurd conclusion.

And you have the nerve to say: “In conclusion, none of what is contained in Pope Bonfiace's papal bull is "new" theology, and what was stated was reaffirmed, explicitly, over the next several centuries.”

It certainly is NOT new theology, but your novel heterodox understanding of it certainly is.

You have no business “blogging” about such Catholic matters where you are clearly and totally incompetent. You have no training is such matters and you are only showing your ignorance.

This is the product of a Feeneyite mind-set -- and it is tragic. But the good news is, it is so blatantly bereft of Catholic orthodoxy that only the most uneducated, and those pre-disposed to such idiocy (brain-washed), cannot see right through it for what it really is – and it is NOT Catholic.

It is private interpretation run amok, and that’s all it is.

Protestants reject the Scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas, and so do you – you simply refuse to admit it as you make a mockery of his teachings with your novel private interpretations.

Do the right thing; shut down your Blog – it’s an embarrassment.

Here's my revelation concerning Session 6, chapter 4 and the pertinent teaching, “..This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire ..,”

If we take the words “or its desire ” to mean anything other than an accompanying disposition for the validity of the sacrament, there appears an immediate nullification of the necessity of the sacramental form for obtaining salvation.
I hope I can explain this in a comprehensible way. If the words “or its desire” mean what Mike and others say they mean then the desire for Baptism becomes Baptism itself, because, the “OR” is giving one a choice; either of receiving the sacrament or, merely desiring the sacrament, as both have (according to the sentence if understood in that way) equal validity. Having given no mention of the desire pertaining only to those who (through no fault of their own) cannot physically receive the sacrament in“water form,” it stands written then (if we take the modern interpretation) that the sacrament of Baptism is available in two forms for everyone; the sense perceptible form and the invisible form. Note that each has equal validity according to the words if taken in their recently proposed new meaning.

Now if we take the words “or its desire” to mean an actual accompanying disposition of the catechumen which renders the sacrament valid and therefore makes it impossible for him/her or anyone else to receive the sacrament against their will, then it becomes obvious that this was the intended meaning of the words “or the desire.”
If we propose that this was not the intended meaning then we must accept that sacramental Baptism and the desire for Baptism are one and the same thing; both giving the full measure of grace and efficacy, including the sacramental mark. One can either receive the actual sacrament or desire the sacrament but both will achieve the full measure equally.

Rather than complicate this simple thought I'll leave it at that for now.

In my OP above I stated Session 6, Chapter 4 to read, This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire.

As well as omitting an important sentence which immediately follows the quoted one, I've since come across a problem with the translation of the words, “ except through.”
The word used in the Latin is “sine,” which translates into English,“Without.”
If the words “ except through” are replaced with the correct word “without,” a meaning very unfavorable to the theory of baptism of desire emerges as follows;
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire.

After being made aware of this mistranslation, I typed the word “sine” into google translator and I'm not here vouching for he accuracy of google translator but it does render the word Sine = Without.
If we now complete the the quote from Ses 6 Ch 4 with the sentence I previously omitted, the true meaning becomes clear and, rather than promoting baptism of desire, Trent is actually refuting it and upholding the dogmatic declarations on the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism
Here's the completed text;

“This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
Trent here confirms that John 3:5 is to be taken “as it is written” which automatically excludes the possibility of salvation without being born again of water (which of course is sacramental Baptism) and is in conformity with Pope Paul III dogmatic pronouncement (Canons on the Sacraments of Baptism, canon 5) “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

As with the theory of evolution and the theory of heliocentrism, the theory of baptism of desire inevitably flounders on the rock of Divine revelation and proclaimed dogma. To accept baptism of desire as de fide, one must renounce the dogma as being in error. As this can't be so, the only available option is to reject the former and adhere to the latter. There is no declared anathema attached to the rejection of baptism of desire but this is not the case concerning the dogma of the necessity of sacramental Baptism.
It may take a brave man to reject “apparent” theological opinion, catechisms or even here-say, but none of these are infallible. Dogma is infallible and I'm not brave enough nor foolhardy enough to reject that. The contradictions are too glaring and no amount of “Saintt so n so said this” or “Saint so n so said that” can make “necessary” mean “unnecessary.”
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (6), 1749 said, “The Church's judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

So Mike, while you were pounding away at Jehanne, I was studying again your arguments and reanalyzing my own. I am now of the firm belief that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are heterodox fabrications even though they be innocently held by many. They stand opposed to revealed truth and Church infallibly defined dogma. Catechumens (as with every creature) stand outside the Church and enter her only through the waters of Baptism. Session 6, Chapter 4 is the sole basis on which the baptism of desire argument hangs and can much more easily be understood in conformity with the Church's long-held belief in the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism than it can be in the heterodox belief of a desire fulfilling pseudo sacrament.

Come up with an infallible Church proclamation that upholds baptism of desire and we can then debate which infallibly proclaimed Church dogma is the true one.

BTW Jehanne, don't go closing down your blog just yet.

My responses:

1) I agree with Colubma's "private understanding" of Trent, and guess what, so did Father Feeney. And guess what else? As has been pointed out to you before (see above), Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester gave the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's book They Fought the Good Fight an Imprimi potest and Bishop Bernard J. Flanagan of Worcester gave the nihil obstat. Your response -- both of these Roman Catholic bishops erred. So, who do we believe -- you or them? Father Feeney's teachings are not heterodox, even if his ideas are only in the realm of "theological opinion." And, of course, why are two Saint Benedict Houses listed as official Catholic centers on at least two diocesan websites? And, why is the Saint Benedict Center headed by Brother Andre Marie (the "third" one) an approved Catholic "house of worship" staffed by a diocesan priest? And, why was a well-known "Feeneyite" made a Papal knight? And why does a prominate canon lawyer state explicitly that "Feeneyites" are Catholic. And why were a group of "Feeneyite" sisters fully reconciled to Rome and only asked to "understand" (not accept) the 1949 Holy Office letter? The list goes on and on. I don't have the time to get all the names, but you know whom I am talking about. So, who to believe -- you or those two Roman Catholic bishops? If they can err (or so you say), why can't you? And, most important, why was Father Feeney fully reconciled to the Church with, by the way, the approval of Pope Paul VI without being required to recant all of his so-called heterodoxy?

2) Brian Kelly made some errors, and a really big one to top things off. So what? It doesn't impact his major thesis. I believe Rahner over you, by the way, and Lombard, too, who made his own historical errors. I challenged you to find one modern scholar who agrees with you that Rahner got things wrong, and so far, you've come-up empty handed.

3) My views are my own, so I speak for myself and not any of the Saint Benedict Centers.

4) Nice selective quoting from my blog. How about this one (which you never referenced let alone responded to):

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: "Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam."

You can't have it both ways. If a catechumen can be fully justified without sacramental Baptism in Water, then he/she must be one of "the faithful of Christ," and therefore, "must be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

I am not getting rid of my blog, by the way, never.

5) Saying that someone, anyone, died without Baptism is just dumb. It's trying "to prove a negative," which is just stupid. Even Father Brian Harrison admits that Baptism of Blood is something that occurs "very rarely," so just because the Church teaches a doctrine does not make it a "common occurrence."

6) Trent never defined Baptism of Blood and/or Desire. If the Council had done that, we would not be arguing over it, and if the Council had chosen to define it, you would seen a separate canon for it. Just as you cannot have a wedding without a bride or groom, so, too, one cannot be justified "without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it." Maybe nearly everyone did have the "correct" interpretation wrong (no guarantee of infallibility from the Holy Spirit), and so the Church had to wait until Father Feeney came along to straighten things out, just as the Church had to wait 1900 years for Papal infallibility to be properly and completely defined.

7) Even you have acknowledged that the "common opinion" of the Doctors, Saints, Popes, and theologians could be wrong on doctrines that the Church has not yet defined (such as a catechumen who dies without Baptism suffering temporal punishment in Purgatory), and since the Church has never defined Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, perhaps Father Feeney's view is the correct one. Are you saying that if a Pope would define that everyone, without exception, who attains Heaven, the Beatific Vision, will have died with sacramental Baptism in Water, no exceptions at all, that the Pope would be guilty of heresy?

8 ) As for "invincibly ignorant" people, you are "pounding on open doors" (once again). We all agree that an infant baptized by a Protestant heretic is fully Catholic, but most Protestants whom I have talked to openly deny Papal Primacy as well as the Marian dogmas. They say, explicitly, that they do not believe in those things, even after being told that they must believe in those revealed dogmas. In your view, how does one ever become a heretic?

9) It's good that the Church does not approve of praying with Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics, and infidels. I saw a picture in my diocesan newspaper some time ago with a bunch of religious sisters who were praying with infidel Muslims, side-by-side. Perhaps the bishop just overlooked this?

10) Saint Thomas taught that heretics should be put to death, if they are obstinate. Do you agree with that teaching? I have asked you this before.

11) As for the 1949 Holy Office letter, how does one who has a "desire that is not explicit" ever "change" his/her mind? How does one who only has an in voto desire to be Catholic decide that he/she no longer wants to be Catholic? Is all of this unconscious? How does one go from a state of unconscious belief to a state of unconscious unbelief?

12) Saint Thomas never taught that one could make a false profession of faith without mortal sin, as do the Protestant heretics and schismatic Orthodox. We've been done this road before. I think that you need to read more of Saint Thomas!

13) Once again, the Catholic secular authorities, with the full approval of the Roman Catholic Church, burned around 80,000 heretics over the course of 1,000 years. Was the Church wrong to do this? Yes or No, please.

And, no, once again, I am not shutting my blog; it should be around, in one form or another, even after I am dead.

Hold the presses, columba just now figured out that "sine" means "without", and is startled that the original citation he provided had "except through"; thereby proving that there is a conspiracy afoot to "change" the "obvious" meaning of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4 so that it allows for justification by the desire for water baptism.

That's what a Catholic education will get you; the ability to correct the universal consensus of Doctors, saints, schools and theologians; and even the Ordinary Magisterium on the true meaning of a dogmatic declaration that has never had any other meaning than that which is understood and presented by the Church and by these same Doctors, saints and schools that were actually fluent in Latin, whether the passage is translated more correctly as "without" or as "except through", which is commonly accepted as well - for they mean the same thing as far as the Church is concerned.

Just wait until columba, armed with his Latin-English dictionary, finds out that the primary meaning of “votum” is “vow”, and that “desire” is only its secondary meaning!

Yikes, that definitely seals the deal – a conspiracy! And all of these self-professed “Latinsits” (you know, the Doctors, Saints, Theologians, Schools and Popes – without a single dissenting voice), either got the translation wrong, and/or “innocently” misunderstood what Trent, Session, 6, Ch. 4 was actually teaching, which is the very OPPOSITE of how the Church and her theologians and Schools have always presented it!

But do tell us, columba, where did you get your training in ecclesiastical/medieval Latin and scholastic theology, from a Cracker-Jack box?

How does one spell “hubris”?

And here we have Jehanne agreeing with you on your novel and heterodox interpretation of Trent, and even saying that Fr. Feeney held the same interpretation, which is a complete falsehood.

But truth does not matter to the two of you, for truth is only what you say it is, and not what the Church says it is, not even when the Church confirms the constant and unanimous teaching of the Doctors, Saints and Schools on a doctrine you deny, though Jehanne can’t seem to make up his mind and wants desperately to have it both ways.

After all, as you say:

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (6), 1749 said, “The Church's judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

There it is; I’m practically speechless!

But never mind that you yanked this statement completely out of context as if Pope Benedict XIV was actually suggesting that the same universal understanding of a dogmatic declaration that is taught by the authentic Ordinary Magisterium and by a universal consensus of Doctors and theologians from the moment the dogmatic declaration was promulgated, was actually already overturned by the “judgment” of the Church (without telling us) when never once did she provide such a “judgment” contrary to the universal consensus – not once.

Please, forum readers, just think for a moment what columba is actually saying. Would anyone else, besides Jehanne (who defends everything!) and the silent sede-Feeneyite contingent, like to defend this heterodoxy? Where's Duckbill when you need him?

But, there you are with your Latin-English dictionary, and the dogmas on justification and Baptism are all the more secure because of your scholastic vigilance, even if only you and a handful of your uneducated friends, armed with your little dictionaries, and with absolutely no training in scholastic theology, are the gnostic-like holders of the true dogmas.

You live in la-la land, columba, and that’s all there is to it.

That’s OK, Jehanne, keep you blog, it makes for good entertainment; comedy of errors that it is.

You're the schismatic heretic, Mike, for saying that two Roman Catholic bishops were in error; or, how about that priest who reviewed The Bread of Life and reported to Pope John XXIII that it was "free of doctrinal error." Who the hell are you???

Jehanne wrote:You're the schismatic heretic, Mike, for saying that two Roman Catholic bishops were in error; or, how about that priest who reviewed The Bread of Life and reported to Pope John XXIII that it was "free of doctrinal error." Who the hell are you???

Jehanne's losing his cool. Good, he needs a wake-up call.

Look, the only Imprimi potest that the St. Benedict Center can make claim to is found in "They Fought the Good Fight", a book by Br. Sennott on Fr. Feeney and Orestes Brownson (who taught baptism of blood, baptism of desire and salvation with an implicit submission to the Roman Pontiff), which reads:

The Imprimi potest is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that he who has granted the Imprimi potest agrees with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

This does not mean that there can be nothing stated that is doctrinally incorrect, but only that the book is not stating anything doctrinally incorrect as something that must be believed. So if an argument is clearly presented as an "opinion", and not as a matter of fact or belief, the opinion can certainly be wrong, and it is not necessarily the responsibility of the authority giving his Imprimi potest to correct errant opinions.

It was Br. Sennott who repeated over and over again that Fr. Feeney's private "opinion" on baptism of desire was just that. And I don't know where you got the idea that some priest who is supposed to have sent a letter to Pope John XXIII that said The Bread of Life was "free of doctrinal error" has any authority whatsoever - but you are grasping at straw, so it doesn't surprise me. Did John XXIII write back? No? That's shocking!

MRyan wrote:

] The Imprimi potest is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that he who has granted the Imprimi potest agrees with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

I am not losing my cool -- just calling a "spade a spade." You don't know what you are talking about, do you? You claim to know "such much" (hah!) about the Saint Benedict Center, more than me (or so you claim):

So, in 1949 what was criticized (not “condemned”) by the Holy Office was a specific article that appeared in From the Housetops , entitled “Reply to a Liberal”. Bread of Life was not ”condemned.” In fact, Pope John XXIII assigned a certain Monsignor Francis Cassano (since deceased) to comb Father Leonard’s book for possible theological aberrations. The Monsignor himself related this fact to us and to other friends of the Center who visited him in his parish on the Hudson River. Monsignor Cassano had also been appointed by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello. He was a prominent Churchman in his day, a confidant of two Popes. He reported to Pope John XXIII that there was nothing “contrary to faith” in Father Feeney’s writings. Cassano saw the difference between opinion and dogma, which is more than can be said for the theologians of Verbum, for as long as dogma is protected, the Church allows theologians to use their minds for the good of God’s Kingdom.

So much for that "flash memory" of yours! The link (which, evidentially, you failed to read):

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

] The Imprimi potest is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that he who has granted the Imprimi potest agrees with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

I am not losing my cool -- just calling a "spade a spade." You don't know what you are talking about, do you? You claim to know "such much" (hah!) about the Saint Benedict Center, more than me (or so you claim):

So, in 1949 what was criticized (not “condemned”) by the Holy Office was a specific article that appeared in From the Housetops , entitled “Reply to a Liberal”. Bread of Life was not ”condemned.” In fact, Pope John XXIII assigned a certain Monsignor Francis Cassano (since deceased) to comb Father Leonard’s book for possible theological aberrations. The Monsignor himself related this fact to us and to other friends of the Center who visited him in his parish on the Hudson River. Monsignor Cassano had also been appointed by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello. He was a prominent Churchman in his day, a confidant of two Popes. He reported to Pope John XXIII that there was nothing “contrary to faith” in Father Feeney’s writings. Cassano saw the difference between opinion and dogma, which is more than can be said for the theologians of Verbum, for as long as dogma is protected, the Church allows theologians to use their minds for the good of God’s Kingdom.

So much for that "flash memory" of yours! The link (which, evidentially, you failed to read):

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

This is just so much nonsense and does nothing to refute what I wrote. There is no official approval given to Fr. Feeney's Bread of Life and the hearsay of what a Monsignor is reported to have reported back to John XXIII does not an official approval make.

Besides, you don't even realize that the citation you provided said the same thing I did, that when "opinions" are presented as just that (and Fr. Feeney's book was not a theological treatise, but a polemical work filled with "Feeneyisms" (exaggerations and hyperbole), so long as Fr. Feeney did not present his errant opinions (heavily insinuated rather than outright falsehoods, which errors would be made more explicit by the St. Benedict Center at a later date), the Monsignor may very well have reported with a clear conscience to Pope John XXIII that there was nothing “contrary to faith” in Father Feeney’s writings.

You are one confused Jose.

Deleted

Jehanne wrote:You're the schismatic heretic, Mike, for saying that two Roman Catholic bishops were in error; or, how about that priest who reviewed The Bread of Life and reported to Pope John XXIII that it was "free of doctrinal error." Who the hell are you???

So now I'm a schismatic AND a heretic for allegedly "saying that two Roman Catholic bishops were in error". Oh my.

But what a strange definition for schism and heresy, don't you think? Is there a charge of refusing communion with the Roman Pontiff, or with those in union with him; or of denying a dogma of the Church? Nope, just some lame accusation of "saying that two Roman Catholic bishops were in error" without even the courtesy of giving us the details of my schismatic and heretical accusation of "error" against two Bishops.

And Jehanne is just "calling a spade a spade"; when he doesn't even know what a spade is. But we must give Feeneyites considerable leeway in these matters, they have a lot of baggage that prevents them from thinking with a Catholic sensus fidelium, and can say some of the most outrageous things with complete immunity because they don't know any better -- and this is a Feeneyite forum, after all.

Jehanne wrote:

So, in 1949 what was criticized (not “condemned”) by the Holy Office was a specific article that appeared in From the Housetops, entitled “Reply to a Liberal”. Bread of Life was not ”condemned.”

Quite so, and I wonder if one of the reasons why Bread of Life was not condemned in 1949 was because it would not be written/published for another three years (1952).

It is also true that a "criticism" (an intervention by the Holy Office) is not a "condemnation" (just like being placed under an interdiction is not an excommunication); not a "formal' condemnation, anyway -- but that was never the intention of the original intervention.

Jehanne wrote:
10) Saint Thomas taught that heretics should be put to death, if they are obstinate. Do you agree with that teaching? I have asked you this before.

Do I agree that the Church has the right to punish obstinate heretics, even by death? Yes. Do I agree that the Church can today justify turning obstinate heretics over to secular authorities to impose the death penalty? No.

I agree with the doctrine on the immutable rights of the Church, but not with the policy, which, as a discipline, is subject to change. Even St. Thomas taught that some laws and disciplines lose their flavor and outlive their usefulness (even to the detriment of good order), and should be modified or completely abrogated as the Church sees fit.

Like with the death penalty, the Church has not denied the fundamental right of the state to exercise this right, but teaches that she can no longer support the moral necessity for the state to carry out such acts.

On this subject of heretics, St. Thomas makes two points:

"one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. (SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2)

Do money forgers deserve the death penalty? In St. Thomas' day, they did, and were often executed. Would the Church still approve of such actions today? Of course not, though the money forgers at the Federal Reserve should be horse-whipped and then fired.

Mike,

I just knew I was wrong with the translation of the word "sine." I can see clearly now that the single word "sine" is more authentically translated as "except through" in the same way that "pro multis" clearly means "for all."
I feel so stupid for having placed my own unscholarly interpretation above that of the modernist, linguistic geniuses.

Here's another one (I bet many people didn't know this). Ya know that decree of Pope St Pius V on the Roman Missal? Wait for it!! When properly translated into English it actually means; "Take this Bull and turn it into a jigsaw, then put it back together whatever way you choose. If the pieces don't fit just squeeze them in anyway or if you wish, throw them out and borrow some pieces from your Lutherans brethren.

Fortunately those linguistic scholars were operating at their peak or we could have been denied the beautiful, reverent, faith-inspiring Novus Ordo Missae. I mean, what would all the kids have done? Sitting there in their pews, bored stiff with no Barny and no "If I were an Elephant" action song, not to mention Sr Reki's unique, inspired interpretation of the first reading.
Well, thank you Mike for putting me right on the Latin. However, if truth be told, Latin isn't my biggest problem. I have this handicap concerning English ( it might even be dyslexia though I haven't been diagnosed yet) but it troubles me so much when I read a sentence which (in my distorted view) seems to be saying something very clearly, only later to find I've taken the complete opposite meaning from it. Here's an example;

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Now you would think that this word "cannot" means, well, "cannot" (don't worry, I thought the same) but in fact it actually means "CAN."
The Church does in fact teach that we must understand these words Literally but heck! what would she Know. Here's a few more examples;

In Perpetua = Temporarily
Desiring = Already possessing
Water = Air
No one = All ( note: but ALL can also = MANY)

These are just a few off the top of my head but you get the idea.
Hopefully I'll progress in this understanding of my first language (before tackling Latin) and maybe even achieve someday that profound, holistic comprehension that won't leave me feeling so marginalized where I can accept the synergy of modern theology so important in achieving that interior transformation that will facilitate my paradigm shift and show forth my spiritual gifts and achieve self-actualization which is so important for true visualization in attaining the goal of common ground inclusiveness. For this I will need a mentor; someone of responsible citizenship who's socially aware and definitely non-judgemental. Someone who totally understands the nuances of modern-day Languages and could make sense out of alphabet soup if it were thrown at a wall.

There's only one person I know who has mastered this art of intelligent interpretation.
Mike! Are you available? I'm ok Mondays and Thursdays.

columba wrote:
So Mike, while you were pounding away at Jehanne, I was studying again your arguments and reanalyzing my own. I am now of the firm belief that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are heterodox fabrications even though they be innocently held by many. They stand opposed to revealed truth and Church infallibly defined dogma. Catechumens (as with every creature) stand outside the Church and enter her only through the waters of Baptism. Session 6, Chapter 4 is the sole basis on which the baptism of desire argument hangs and can much more easily be understood in conformity with the Church's long-held belief in the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism than it can be in the heterodox belief of a desire fulfilling pseudo sacrament.

1. You obviously are either incapable of proper study, or are studying the odorous opinions of lay quacks, such as those guys in upstate NY.

2. The so-called "heterodox fabrications" of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not just "innocently held by many", they are authoritatively held and taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

3. If baptism of blood and baptism of desire "stand opposed to revealed truth and Church infallibly defined dogma", then the Church has failed in her divine mission by teaching heresy to the universal Church.

4. "Session 6, Chapter 4 is" NOT "the sole basis on which the baptism of desire argument hangs", far from it. It also "hangs" on the universal moral consensus of the Doctors, Saints, Theologians and the Schools, and it "hangs" on the authentic Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which has taught the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent. Trent did NOT overturn the teachings of the Doctors and Schools, represented by such works as the Sentences of Peter Lombard and the Summa of St. Thomas; she detracts nothing from the "true understanding" that is commonly held by the Doctors and Schools, and only confirmed these same doctrines. It is absolutely preposterous for your to suggest otherwise. But, armed with your little Latin-English dictionary and with Google, neither the universal teaching of the Doctors and theologians, nor the authentic Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, stand a chance.

5. "Catechumens (as with every creature) stand outside the Church [Militant] and enter her only through the waters of Baptism." But standing outside the Church Militant does not prevent them from being united to the Mystical Body by a desire (faith and charity) for the sacrament, as St. Thomas teaches, and as the Church authoritatively confirms.

6. You say the Church's long-held belief in the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism is opposed to the "heterodox belief of a desire fulfilling pseudo sacrament", which only proves that your pathetic ecclesiology, revisionist "interpretations" and so-called theology are sad examples of lay ignorance running rough-shod over the authority and integrity of the ecclesia docens.

Your doctrine is sheer heterodoxy, anarchy and Protestant private interpretation to the core. You should become a member of the schismatic sect in NY -- its where you belong.

MRyan wrote:5. "Catechumens (as with every creature) stand outside the Church [Militant] and enter her only through the waters of Baptism." But standing outside the Church Militant does not prevent them from being united to the Mystical Body by a desire (faith and charity) for the sacrament, as St. Thomas teaches, and as the Church authoritatively confirms.

True, but such individuals must still be subject to the Roman Pontiff:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: "Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam."

As for heresy/schism, if an individual declares a bishop to be in error who is united to the Pope, how could that not be a schismatic act? You are also "refusing communion" with Catholics, "Feeneyites," who are in full communion with the Pope, Vicar of God, by claiming that "Feeneyites" hold to heterodox ideas, and by extension, that the Pope is in full communion with individuals who are holding heterodox beliefs. You have also said that Father Feeney had heterodox ideas when he, in fact, died in full communion with Rome and without any ecclesiastical censures of any kind.

MRyan wrote:
1. You obviously are either incapable of proper study, or are studying the odorous opinions of lay quacks, such as those guys in upstate NY

.

In the absence of a present-day confirmation of the necessity of sacramental Baptism, I study a vast array of opinions and work out which makes sense in light of already declared dogma.

2. The so-called "heterodox fabrications" of baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not just "innocently held by many", they are authoritatively held and taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

They are not taught authoritatively by the Roman Catholic Church. Any authority they contain must be understood in accordance with previously declared dogmas and done so without altering the meaning of the same.

3. If baptism of blood and baptism of desire "stand opposed to revealed truth and Church infallibly defined dogma", then the Church has failed in her divine mission by teaching heresy to the universal Church.

Fortunately She has never taught such things infallibly. If you feel She has, then you've got some head scratchin to do.

4. "Session 6, Chapter 4 is" NOT "the sole basis on which the baptism of desire argument hangs", far from it. It also "hangs" on the universal moral consensus of the Doctors, Saints, Theologians and the Schools, and it "hangs" on the authentic Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which has taught the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent.

I beg to differ. "Session 6, Chapter 4 clearly does NOT teach baptism of desire/baptism of blood and therefore is not upholding the theological opinions that you say it upholds.

Trent did NOT overturn the teachings of the Doctors and Schools, represented by such works as the Sentences of Peter Lombard and the Summa of St. Thomas;

I agree. Trent did not overturn the teachings of the doctors and scholars. Trent merely agreed with those who believed in the absolute necessity of Baptism; For when it declared, as it is writtn, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God," the meaning of the sentence immediately preceding this became clear. Notice too that John 3:5 does not say, "water OR the Spirit" but "water AND the Spirit." Tell me, does the "And" in this case mean "Or"?

It is absolutely preposterous for your to suggest otherwise.

Really! Lets see who's being preposterous.

But, armed with your little Latin-English dictionary and with Google, neither the universal teaching of the Doctors and theologians, nor the authentic Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, stand a chance.

And Likewise, with your infallible laymans opinion on these matters the dogmatic declarations of the Church and the teaching of Trent are reduced to a meaningless formula of words. Excluding among the ranks certain notorious modernists, the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church has not spoken against the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism as can be deduced by her acceptance of those who hold to the dogma.

5. "Catechumens (as with every creature) stand outside the Church [Militant] and enter her only through the waters of Baptism." But standing outside the Church Militant does not prevent them from being united to the Mystical Body by a desire (faith and charity) for the sacrament, as St. Thomas teaches, and as the Church authoritatively confirms

Where does the Church authoritatively confirm this? Is there now another branch of the Church that I've not heard about? I know of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant but to which category do these unbaptized catechumens belong? Can one bypass the Church Militant and enter the Church Suffering or Triumphant? Are there any in the Church Triumphant who weren't at one time members of he Church Militant? To my knowledge there is no such thing as the Church Desiring.

6. You say the Church's long-held belief in the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism is opposed to the "heterodox belief of a desire fulfilling pseudo sacrament", which only proves that your pathetic ecclesiology, revisionist "interpretations" and so-called theology are sad examples of lay ignorance running rough-shod over the authority and integrity of the ecclesia docens.

If lay ignorance is to Judge lay ignorance then things are sure to get very subjective. Thats why I rely on the objective truth as presented to us "ignorant" layfolk by primarily the dogmatic proclamations that are to be held by all the faithful and to which even the Ordinary Majestarium are bound.

Your doctrine is sheer heterodoxy, anarchy and Protestant private interpretation to the core. You should become a member of the schismatic sect in NY -- its where you belong.

My doctrine is the Church's dogma. it is your doctrine which results in anarchy, Protestantism and private interpretation. In fact it is almost the definition of Protestantism. For confirmation go check out MarianLibrarian's latest thread.

Now... back to my Latin/English studies.

columba wrote:Mike,

I just knew I was wrong with the translation of the word "sine." I can see clearly now that the single word "sine" is more authentically translated as "except through" in the same way that "pro multis" clearly means "for all."

I feel so stupid for having placed my own unscholarly interpretation above that of the modernist, linguistic geniuses.

I posted the response which follows some time ago (in response to a question by DeSelby on the correct translation of Unam Sanctum), so your "eureka" Google and Latin-English translation moment is quite humorous when we consider that you are probably the only Catholic on the planet who has studied this issue (and I use the term loosely) that did not know that the literal translation of "sine" is "without".

In fact, I have never used the "except through" translation, though it makes no difference to the true understanding of the dogmatic passage. I simply take that false and over-played argument away at the outset by using the more accurate translation. The very first thing I noticed in your original post was your odd choice for your presentation of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, while waiting to see how long it would take you to have your "eureka" moment by way of your bull-dogged scholarly "study" of this issue as if you had just discovered the key to unlocking the mystery of the great conspiracy to "hide" the "true" meaning of Session 6, Ch. 4 that somehow every single Doctor, Saint, Theologian and School since the Council of Trent had missed.

The Da Vinci Code has nothing on you; you keep me in stitches. Will there be a movie? You can get the terrible-twosome in upstate NY to serve as "expert" advisers.

Anyway, here is what I said on this subject a while back:

English translations to the official Latin magisterial texts are not always consistent. But inconsistency does not translate to bad intentions and nefarious agendas, but it may reflect one’s unintended “bias” with respect to one’s own understanding. I think it is safe to say that any “official” translation reflects the honest interpretation of the translator who strives to be as accurate as possible. Since the more “official” translations will be reviewed by a host of theologians and ecclesiastical sources, any translation that is too far off from the “mind of the Church” and its intended meaning of the Latin text will, one may assume, be corrected.

We see this, as you know, even in the translations to the Council of Trent where, for example, in Sess. 6. Ch 4 “sine” is not always translated as the more literal “without”, but also as “except through”; i.e., “cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or its desire” vs. “cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.”

When properly understood, it doesn’t make any difference for they both mean the same thing, unless one’s objection to “except through” simply reflects one’s bias to change the meaning of the disjunctive “or” so that it means that both the sacrament and its desire are at all times necessary for justification. The Church has never understood it in this manner … and that is the point … how does the Church understand a particular magisterial text? I’m not sure that someone with a Latin dictionary is qualified to tell us without recourse to the common opinion of the theologians and the traditional understanding of the Church that may be known by her other corroborative official teachings.

We see these same principles at play with the translation of “voto” in the same passage. Despite the fact that “vow” is the primary meaning for “votum”, the secondary meaning “desire” is the more common translation for, as the CE indicates, the Council of Trent did not want to limit the intention to receive baptism to one of vowed intention, which is of course necessary, but also wished to convey the supernatural aspect of “desire” as it is commonly understood in “baptism of desire” as a vow/intention to receive baptism that is animated by perfect charity.

In other words, one may have the vowed intention (votum) to receive baptism without possessing the necessary charity that makes one a living "member" of the Body. To be a member of the mystic Body without the divine life of grace is not that “justification” defined by Trent; hence, no one (of the impious) can be justified without Baptism, or without at least the intention and desire for Baptism.

However, as is the case with Mystic Corporis Chrtisti, the NCWC (predecessor of the USCC/NCCB) translations are often the “official” English translations, though there is nothing that can guarantee 100% accuracy. If you are familiar with the works of Fr. Fenton and Fr. Harrison, they will sometimes provide their own translations or corrections to NCWC translations (or Denzinger’s) with what they believe is a more accurate representation of the mind of the Church conveyed in the nuance of the Latin text.

For example, here is Fr. Fenton in his article “Questions About Membership in the Church”:

Now what is precisely the teaching of the Church with reference to membership in the Church? Obviously the basic text of the magisterium with which we must be concerned is the statement in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. To quote Pope Pius XII:

In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt. (AAS, XXXV (1943), 202. In the Gregorian University Press text, with notes by Sebastian Tromp, S.J., this is par. 21.)

The NCWC translation of the Mystici Corporis Christi gives this version of the statement about membership in the Church or the Mystical Body of Christ.

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

The one fairly serious imperfection of this rendering is to be found in the use of the term "unity" as a translation of the Latin "compage." The Latin word carries the implication of a physical connection, of a visible principle of unity. Harper's Latin Dictionary uses the English terms "joining together," "connection," "joint," "structure," and "embrace" as translations of the Latin "compages" or "compago."

The term "member of the Church" can legitimately be applied only to those baptized persons who have not frustrated the force of their baptismal characters by public heresy or apostasy, or by schism, and who have not been expelled from the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1357)

Columba, try to get it through your head that a "literal" word-for-word translation from Latin to English does not always convey the best or more precise sense or meaning of a particular passage (as it was intended in the will of the legislator) due to the fact of differences in grammatical rules and the nuance of the Latin language.

You can mock "the modernist, linguistic geniuses" all you want with your Latin-English dictionary, but you are the one who has a lot to learn.

columba wrote:
My doctrine is the Church's dogma. it is your doctrine which results in anarchy, Protestantism and private interpretation. In fact it is almost the definition of Protestantism. For confirmation go check out MarianLibrarian's latest thread.

Your doctrine is pure private interpretation. You have no use for the authoritative, living and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and you have no use for the universal consensus of the Doctors, Saints and Schools, whose unanimous common understanding of Session 6, Ch. 4 is disputed by no one (especially not the Church) since the decrees of Session VI of the Council of Trent were promulgated.

You mock the Angelic Doctor (and at least six other Doctors) and you mock the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent with your Protestant accusation of “error” against the Church for deviating from the original intention and meaning of the Council that is alleged to have proclaimed that NO ONE can be justified, let alone saved, without the sacrament of Baptism.

And yet, you cannot produce even one corroborative source, not one Doctor, Saint, Theologian, Catechism, or authoritative Papal declaration that can confirm your uneducated “interpretation” that has NEVER been held by the Church. No, you simply post dogmatic prescriptions and “definitions” (which often enough are not “definitions”) and “interpret” these “once declared” words by the de fide infallible light of your Protestant-inspired autonomous authority, and dare to tell us that your novel interpretation is that of the true Church, and that the “true understanding” presented by the Magisterium and her Doctors, Saints and Theologians since the Council of Trent is FALSE.

Your 3rd grade ecclesiology is pathetic, though your sede inspired private “theology” is even worse, if that is even possible.

Those who refuse to be corrected by the Church are faux-Catholics. And those who set-up false divisions between the Magisterium of a former age with the present Magisterium are heretics. Materiality is irrelevant – heresy is heresy and you have no problem accusing the Church of the same, while refusing to look in the mirror.

Mike,

All that you have ever proved is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood exist for catechumens only:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: "Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam."

Are you saying that we are heretical because we "at least hope" that all catechumens without exception die with Baptism? Is it wrong to hope that such is the case for every human being who attains Heaven, the Beatific Vision?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

All that you have ever proved is that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood exist for catechumens only:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: "Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam."

Are you saying that we are heretical because we "at least hope" that all catechumens without exception die with Baptism? Is it wrong to hope that such is the case for every human being who attains Heaven, the Beatific Vision?

No, that is not all that I have ever proved, and your statement is nonsensical and ignores the testimony of the Doctors saints and theologians, as well as the authoritative teachings of the Church that I have presented on numerous occasions.

I must say, Jehanne, that you continue to under-whelm me with your penetrating analysis and ability to twist anything and everything through whatever strange prism your mind operates.

You can conflate more than one issue (each of which may require its own separate analysis) and a variety of doctrinal distinctions, into one dysfunctional and confusing thought as if these distinctions do not exist.

I have no idea what you are talking about since it would be outrageous to even imply that I said that you “are heretical because we ‘at least hope’ that all catechumens without exception die with Baptism?”

Gee, Jehanne, is the Church “heretical” because it allows us to “at least hope” for the salvation of un-baptized infants through the mercy of God, while also telling us that she knows of no way other than Baptism that can assure salvation?

And you are the same person who said that it is “formal heresy” to hold that one may be justified and saved by supernatural faith and charity with only an implicit desire for Baptism (that does not become explicit) and an implicit desire to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

And though I could challenge your assertion that you “have never said/declared/etc. that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are ‘null sets’", as well as your assertion that you “do not agree with the official St. Benedict Center position” by citing your own words against you, I will leave it at that.

But it’s nice to know that you are distancing yourself from the St. Benedict Center mother ship, but there remains yet another major rift between you and Br. Andre (your future superior) who also completely disagrees with you on an implicit desire for baptism, and would probably disagree with you on subjection to the Roman Pontiff (unless I am misreading him), about which you said:

The whole concept of "implicit submission" is heretical and absurd because it denies human free will.

On the contrary, and Br. Andre would appear to disagree when he writes:

I believe that such an act [desire for Baptism … a “commanded act” of Charity] can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God.

I see no reason why this same commanded act of charity cannot include an implicit desire to be subject to the Holy Father since they are based on the same theological principle; and I believe Br. Andre would agree; and would not agree with this:

This Protocol is substantially defective in that it contains heresy insofar as it states that one can be saved under certain conditions outside the Roman Catholic Church [rubbish – it said no such thing] and without personal subjection to the Roman Pontiff …” (Brother Robert Mary, M.I.C.M, Tert., Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, by p. 21)

Will the real Feeneyite in the room please stand up?

So, no, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not “moot points” (being "null sets" and all) and you cannot say that you accept the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood and baptism of desire while calling an important aspect of that same doctrine, as the Church presents it to the Faithful, “formally heretical”?

It is heretical because it is absurd, the idea that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, thereafter, have no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end. It's like saying that a child could go through K-12 public school without hearing about the existence of North America. So, please, "cite my words" or shut up.

To say that infants could be saved without Baptism is to ignore all the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Councils, and scholastic theologians of the Church. If there is one thing that is certain in all of Catholic theology, it is that an infant who dies without Baptism cannot (and will not) attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

As for as "distancing" myself from the Saint Benedict Center, nothing could be further from the Truth. The Saint Benedict Center does not consider Father Feeney's speculations on the absolute necessity of Baptism to be the central issue. If you think that, then you really need to read more.

So, a Protestant heretic and/or schismatic Orthodox who denies Papal Primacy, in fact, actually "believes" in such? Is that what you are saying?

As for the "Protocol" (which was one Bishop's letter, signed by his secretary, to another), maybe it did not "say that," but that's what everyone interpreted it as meaning. It raised many more questions than it answered, and as I said before, it carried less weight than did the Church's condemnation against Galileo.

As for what Brother Andre believes or does not believe, ask him yourself. He has his own Facebook page, and his email address is easy to acquire.

Once again, what specifically, am I "denying" with respect to the Church's teachings on Baptism of Desire and/or Blood?

Jehanne wrote:It is heretical because it is absurd, the idea that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, thereafter, have no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end. It's like saying that a child could go through K-12 public school without hearing about the existence of North America. So, please, "cite my words" or shut up.

I have cited your words and quoted you verbatim; so watch the "shut up" bravado.

What you said was exactly this: "The whole concept of 'implicit submission' is heretical and absurd because it denies human free will."

Those are your own words (my underscore), so "shut up" or put up.

Br. Andre specifically refutes this nonsense by saying that:

I believe that such an act [desire for Baptism … a “commanded act” of Charity] can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God.

Do you get it, Jehanne? I've explained this to you until I am blue in the face, and you won't believe me and you won't believe the Church or her Doctors; and you won't believe your future superior?

Will you accuse him of "formal heresy" for saying that a “commanded act” of Charity (an act of the will) can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God"?

What's that; "shut up", because all of this is "moot"?

And so you ignore this little "disagreement" with your future superior on a matter of "formal heresy" by re-writing the script and moving the goal-posts, and saying:

It is heretical because it is absurd, the idea that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, thereafter, have no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end. It's like saying that a child could go through K-12 public school without hearing about the existence of North America.

This is pathetic. You just make this stuff as you go. When St. Thomas taught that the savage in the woods could be inspired with revealed truth when a preacher could not be sent, what has that to do with having "no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end"? This is just one of your wild "logical" fantasies that extends a basic truth and imagines all kinds of absurd possibilities, as if St. Thomas was not talking about what is necessary for salvation (normally associated with the last things), but about living in a state of justification for years on end without the possibility of further "inspiration", or of having a preacher sent.

If God wills and preordains the sacrament of Baptism for any particular soul, He will provide; just as He will provide the grace of the sacrament, and the truths necessary for salvation, to those who answer His call.

Jehanne wrote:
To say that infants could be saved without Baptism is to ignore all the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Councils, and scholastic theologians of the Church. If there is one thing that is certain in all of Catholic theology, it is that an infant who dies without Baptism cannot (and will not) attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

No, it does not "ignore" any such thing. That the Doctors, the Saints and the Church knew of no means other than Baptism that could assure the salvation of an unbaptized infant (and the Church still does not know of any other means) does not mean that there cannot be reasons for hope.

The "certainty" you speak of is a theological note assigned to a particular theological conclusion. It is certain that the Church always willed and desired the salvation of infants, while also being certain that she knew of no way other than Baptism that could assure their salvation. After all, as Pope Pius XII said, the way of baptism of desire is not open to the them.

So, yes, the beatific vision for unbaptized infants was never considered a possibility, if only because the Church's theologians never explored if other such reasons for hope could exist.

But is that really true? What about baptism of blood for infants? The Church has long considered the Holy Innocents a legitimate example of baptism of blood, and an exception to the sacrament, as rare as these cases might be.

The Church has every right to to explore theological and liturgical reasons for hope that her theologians have only recently explored; and only the Church can settle this matter ... which may never be settled. And as long as it remains unsettled, the doctrine of Limbo, and the necessity and urgency of baptism for children shall remain.

Do you deny the development of doctrine on Limbo? What happened to the Augustine doctrine on sense suffering (no "Limbo") that was the common and "certain" teaching "of the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Councils, and scholastic theologians of the Church" for some 800 years? In fact, some believed it was "de fide", so "certain" was this universal doctrine!

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:It is heretical because it is absurd, the idea that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, thereafter, have no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end. It's like saying that a child could go through K-12 public school without hearing about the existence of North America. So, please, "cite my words" or shut up.

I have cited your words and quoted you verbatim; so watch the "shut up" bravado.

What you said was exactly this: "The whole concept of 'implicit submission' is heretical and absurd because it denies human free will."

Those are your own words (my underscore), so "shut up" or put up.

It is heretical and absurd. How could it not be:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/implicit-submission-another-absurdity.html

A Protestant and/or an Orthodox who denies Papal Primacy, the Marian dogmas, etc., actually "believes" in them. Is that what you are saying?

MRyan wrote:Br. Andre specifically refutes this nonsense by saying that:

I believe that such an act [desire for Baptism … a “commanded act” of Charity] can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God.

Do you get it, Jehanne? I've explained this to you until I am blue in the face, and you won't believe me and you won't believe the Church or her Doctors; and you won't believe your future superior?

So, you're saying that someone can deny Catholic dogma and still have perfect charity for the One and Triune God? Is that what Brother Andre believes? I think that you should ask him.

MRyan wrote:Will you accuse him of "formal heresy" for saying that a “commanded act” of Charity (an act of the will) can be included (implicit) in any supernatural act of the Love of God"?

What's that; "shut up", because all of this is "moot"?

No, but I doubt that Brother Andre would say that obstinate formal heresy and/or schism can coexist alongside perfect charity. But, ask him.

MRyan wrote:And so you ignore this little "disagreement" with your future superior on a matter of "formal heresy" by re-writing the script and moving the goal-posts, and saying:

It is heretical because it is absurd, the idea that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, thereafter, have no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end. It's like saying that a child could go through K-12 public school without hearing about the existence of North America.

This is pathetic. You just make this stuff as you go. When St. Thomas taught that the savage in the woods could be inspired with revealed truth when a preacher could not be sent, what has that to do with having "no knowledge of Baptism, perhaps for decades on end"? This is just one of your wild "logical" fantasies that extends a basic truth and imagines all kinds of absurd possibilities, as if St. Thomas was not talking about what is necessary for salvation (normally associated with the last things), but about living in a state of justification for years on end without the possibility of further "inspiration", or of having a preacher sent.

If God wills and preordains the sacrament of Baptism for any particular soul, He will provide; just as He will provide the grace of the sacrament, and the truths necessary for salvation, to those who answer His call.

That is not what Saint Thomas taught:

"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 would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” (Disputed Questions on the Truth, q.14, a.11)

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
To say that infants could be saved without Baptism is to ignore all the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Councils, and scholastic theologians of the Church. If there is one thing that is certain in all of Catholic theology, it is that an infant who dies without Baptism cannot (and will not) attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

No, it does not "ignore" any such thing. That the Doctors, the Saints and the Church knew of no means other than Baptism that could assure the salvation of an unbaptized infant (and the Church still does not know of any other means) does not mean that there cannot be reasons for hope.

The "certainty" you speak of is a theological note assigned to a particular theological conclusion. It is certain that the Church always willed and desired the salvation of infants, while also being certain that she knew of no way other than Baptism that could assure their salvation. After all, as Pope Pius XII said, the way of baptism of desire is not open to the them.

So, yes, the beatific vision for unbaptized infants was never considered a possibility, if only because the Church's theologians never explored if other such reasons for hope could exist.

That's not the impression that I am getting from Saint Alphonsus:

"Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned." (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Explanation of Trent)

But, wait, I already posted that! Nonetheless, it seems so clear. What further "development" could there be -- either Trent was right or wrong! Either an infant dies with Baptism or without it. Correct? And, if an infant dies without Baptism, either such an infant goes to Heaven or does not. Correct?

MRyan wrote:But is that really true? What about baptism of blood for infants? The Church has long considered the Holy Innocents a legitimate example of baptism of blood, and an exception to the sacrament, as rare as these cases might be.

They were, of course, all Jews who had been circumcised.

MRyan wrote:The Church has every right to to explore theological and liturgical reasons for hope that her theologians have only recently explored; and only the Church can settle this matter ... which may never be settled. And as long as it remains unsettled, the doctrine of Limbo, and the necessity and urgency of baptism for children shall remain.

Do you deny the development of doctrine on Limbo? What happened to the Augustine doctrine on sense suffering (no "Limbo") that was the common and "certain" teaching "of the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Councils, and scholastic theologians of the Church" for some 800 years? In fact, some believed it was "de fide", so "certain" was this universal doctrine!

I agree with Saint Augustine, but remember what he did and did not teach -- unbaptized infants do go to Hell proper, but their sufferring is so mild that it is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to the teaching of Saint Thomas. Such infants are in a natural paradise, just not a perfect one. Perhaps they are like butterflies on a beautiful meadow who have to endure the occasional discomfort of a gust of wind. That's not what is de fide; what is de fide is that they are not in Heaven.

Jehanne, you cannot stay on topic or formulate a reasoned response. This is a complete waste of time. Your evasions, misdirections, obfuscations and appalling "theology" is more than I can handle. Enough.

Good luck with your pathetic "Blog".

You've only shown that you are incapable of reading. Good riddance!

The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

Here it only remains for us to answer the object which is drawn from children being lost when they die before baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former. I will state them briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of secondary causes (such as the death of children), whose course God is not bound to change, after having disposed the whole according to the just judgment of his general Providence; all this is collected from what St. Thomas says. Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, “because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in original sin there is not conversion to creatures” (as the fault is not our own), “and therefore pain of sense is not due to original sin;” because original sin does not imply an act. Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.” And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.” This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.” St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.”

And as far as relates to the pain of loss, although these children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas, who had reflected most deeply on this point, teaches that no one feels pain for the want of that good of which he is not capable; so that as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or no private person that he is not emperor, so these children feel no pain at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable; since they could never pretend to it either by the principles of nature, or by their own merits. St. Thomas adds, in another place, a further reason, which is that the supernatural knowledge of glory comes only by means of actual faith, which transcends all natural knowledge; so that children can never feel pain for the privation of that glory, of which they never had a supernatural knowledge. He further says, in the former passage, that such children will not only not grieve for the loss of eternal happiness, but will, moreover, have pleasure in their natural gifts; and will even in some way enjoy God, so far as is implied in natural knowledge and in natural love: “Rather will they rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the divine goodness, and in natural perfections.” And he immediately adds that although they will be separated from God as regards the union of glory, nevertheless “they will be united with Him by participation of natural gifts; and so will even be able to rejoice in Him with a natural knowledge and love.”

columba wrote:Mike,

I just knew I was wrong with the translation of the word "sine." I can see clearly now that the single word "sine" is more authentically translated as "except through" in the same way that "pro multis" clearly means "for all."

I feel so stupid for having placed my own unscholarly interpretation above that of the modernist, linguistic geniuses.

MRyan wrote:
I posted the response which follows some time ago (in response to a question by DeSelby on the correct translation of Unam Sanctum), so your "eureka" Google and Latin-English translation moment is quite humorous when we consider that you are probably the only Catholic on the planet who has studied this issue (and I use the term loosely) that did not know that the literal translation of "sine" is "without".

Your sense of humor Mike has lifted my spirits.
I often questioned if in fact you had such as sense and if so, was it merely an unwelcome intruder, prone to invade your unique talent for mockery. But I feel in this case it was genuine because (whether you realized it or not) you actually credited me with the title, “Catholic.” I think it only fair that I acknowledge this lest anyone should presume to think that you would consider yourself the only Catholic on the forum.

In fact, I have never used the "except through" translation, though it makes no difference to the true understanding of the dogmatic passage. I simply take that false and over-played argument away at the outset by using the more accurate translation.

Please stop Mike! Do you not think I'm feeling bad enough without this added guilt of having doubted your sincerity?

The very first thing I noticed in your original post was your odd choice for your presentation of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, while waiting to see how long it would take you to have your "eureka" moment by way of your bull-dogged scholarly "study" of this issue as if you had just discovered the key to unlocking the mystery of the great conspiracy to "hide" the "true" meaning of Session 6, Ch. 4 that somehow every single Doctor, Saint, Theologian and School since the Council of Trent had missed.

I would be delighted to take the credit for having unlocked the great mystery of Session 6, Ch. 4, but everyone here would know that the credit for this already goes to the Fathers of Trent for having so well phrased the chapter that the true meaning could not be missed. Why, just to be sure of this and to avoid any chance of misrepresentaion, they concluded the chapter with the actual words of Our Lord,. (John 3:5)

The Da Vinci Code has nothing on you; you keep me in stitches. Will there be a movie? You can get the terrible-twosome in upstate NY to serve as "expert" advisers.

The strange thing is; the Da Vinci Code (which I've never seen nor read) has been swallowed by many a nominal Catholic. This could only occur in a time where the ground has already been prepared in advance. The denial or neglect of dogma being a major part of that groundwork. The upstate NYer's I don't think have contributed to this. They can't be blamed for everything.

Anyway, here is what I said on this subject a while back:
English translations to the official Latin magisterial texts are not always consistent. But inconsistency does not translate to bad intentions and nefarious agendas, but it may reflect one’s unintended “bias” with respect to one’s own understanding. I think it is safe to say that any “official” translation reflects the honest interpretation of the translator who strives to be as accurate as possible. Since the more “official” translations will be reviewed by a host of theologians and ecclesiastical sources, any translation that is too far off from the “mind of the Church” and its intended meaning of the Latin text will, one may assume, be corrected.

This of course would be true in the normal course of events, however, as I pointed out earlier, the translation of “Pro multis” to “For many,” shows that this is unfortunately not always the case. Remember,we are talking here of a mistranslation involving the Source, Center and Summit of our Faith. If they can get that wrong, what more need be said?

Columba, try to get it through your head that a "literal" word-for-word translation from Latin to English does not always convey the best or more precise sense or meaning of a particular passage (as it was intended in the will of the legislator) due to the fact of differences in grammatical rules and the nuance of the Latin language.

Spare me the lesson Mike. I've studied Gaelic, French and some Spanish and what you say is true of many languages. The point is, the word “Without” conveys the true meaning in Session 6, Ch.4 and in a clearer way than “Except through,” especially with the inclusion of John 3:5 dispelling any doubt.

You can mock "the modernist, linguistic geniuses" all you want with your Latin-English dictionary, but you are the one who has a lot to learn.

My bishop knows of my anti baptism of desire stance and as yet has not reproached me concerning it. He may have a lot to learn too but thus far I'm not excluded from the sacraments.
Does anyone know of anyone, anywhere who has been excommunicated for not believeing in baptism of desire/baptism of blood? Mike thinks the Church is neglecting her duty on this matter.

MRyan wrote:
Your doctrine is pure private interpretation. You have no use for the authoritative, living and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and you have no use for the universal consensus of the Doctors, Saints and Schools, whose unanimous common understanding of Session 6, Ch. 4 is disputed by no one (especially not the Church) since the decrees of Session VI of the Council of Trent were promulgated.

You mock the Angelic Doctor (and at least six other Doctors) and you mock the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent with your Protestant accusation of “error” against the Church for deviating from the original intention and meaning of the Council that is alleged to have proclaimed that NO ONE can be justified, let alone saved, without the sacrament of Baptism.

So much hot air Mike. Heard it all before.

Here's another anathema from Trent;
If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us JUSTICE, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: Session 5, Ch. 3.

And yet, you cannot produce even one corroborative source, not one Doctor, Saint, Theologian, Catechism, or authoritative Papal declaration that can confirm your uneducated “interpretation” that has NEVER been held by the Church. No, you simply post dogmatic prescriptions and “definitions” (which often enough are not “definitions”) and “interpret” these “once declared” words by the de fide infallible light of your Protestant-inspired autonomous authority, and dare to tell us that your novel interpretation is that of the true Church, and that the “true understanding” presented by the Magisterium and her Doctors, Saints and Theologians since the Council of Trent is FALSE.

I simply quote dogmatic prescriptions and definitions? YES. I'm guilty of that.
I quote these because they are infallible and can't be argued against.
My interpretations are NOT infallible but he statements themselves ARE infallible. The statements contain the actual interpretations; if they didn't how could anyone be anathema for disagreeing, and whether they agree with the saints and Doctors or disagree, are no slight on their scholarliness.

Your 3rd grade ecclesiology is pathetic, though your sede inspired private “theology” is even worse, if that is even possible.

Thanks for advancing me to 3rd grade. I don't actually have any grade but I can read. I know that two contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time. E.g. "Cannot be obtained without" and "Can be obtained without,"

Those who refuse to be corrected by the Church are faux-Catholics. And those who set-up false divisions between the Magisterium of a former age with the present Magisterium are heretics. Materiality is irrelevant – heresy is heresy and you have no problem accusing the Church of the same, while refusing to look in the mirror.

I agree. If the divisions where false then they would not be divisions at all but merely perceived divisions. It is I who maintain that there is NO division; that my interpretation of Trent is an non-divisive interpretation and perfectly in accord with infallible, dogmatic pronouncements. On the other hand, your fallible interpretation is divisive and in accord with a modernist, theologically-liberal mindset.

"Heresy is heresy" you say, whether material or formal. If you mean that both are equally culpable then that indeed would be an heretical understanding not in accord with the true theological definitions of both. However, for someone who believes in not only baptism of desire but implicit baptism of desire, implicit faith and natural good will being sufficient for salvation, is there any real need to bother about heresy anymore.
Another one of those new definitions could be appropriate here. Heresy= Orthodoxy

columba wrote:

columba wrote:Mike,

I just knew I was wrong with the translation of the word "sine." I can see clearly now that the single word "sine" is more authentically translated as "except through" in the same way that "pro multis" clearly means "for all."

I feel so stupid for having placed my own unscholarly interpretation above that of the modernist, linguistic geniuses.

MRyan wrote:

I posted the response which follows some time ago (in response to a question by DeSelby on the correct translation of Unam Sanctum), so your "eureka" Google and Latin-English translation moment is quite humorous when we consider that you are probably the only Catholic on the planet who has studied this issue (and I use the term loosely) that did not know that the literal translation of "sine" is "without".

Your sense of humor Mike has lifted my spirits.
I often questioned if in fact you had such as sense and if so, was it merely an unwelcome intruder, prone to invade your unique talent for mockery. But I feel in this case it was genuine because (whether you realized it or not) you actually credited me with the title, “Catholic.” I think it only fair that I acknowledge this lest anyone should presume to think that you would consider yourself the only Catholic on the forum.

I'm glad that I was able to lift your spirits. And yes, my sense of humor remains intact despite these many frustrating excursions that tend to be heavily weighted on one side with something less than a sound Catholic approach to ecclesiology; i.e., when a true sensus fidelium to Church teaching is absent.

When it comes to doctrine, the Church has not lost its mind, columba, contrary to the popular opinion amongst certain trads.

columba wrote:

In fact, I have never used the "except through" translation, though it makes no difference to the true understanding of the dogmatic passage. I simply take that false and over-played argument away at the outset by using the more accurate translation.

Please stop Mike! Do you not think I'm feeling bad enough without this added guilt of having doubted your sincerity?

I did not mean to imply that you doubted my sincerity; I'm just telling you why I have always used the more literal translation, even if it does not convey the true sense of the Latin as well as "except through". We'll get to that in a minute.

columba wrote:

The very first thing I noticed in your original post was your odd choice for your presentation of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, while waiting to see how long it would take you to have your "eureka" moment by way of your bull-dogged scholarly "study" of this issue as if you had just discovered the key to unlocking the mystery of the great conspiracy to "hide" the "true" meaning of Session 6, Ch. 4 that somehow every single Doctor, Saint, Theologian and School since the Council of Trent had missed.

I would be delighted to take the credit for having unlocked the great mystery of Session 6, Ch. 4, but everyone here would know that the credit for this already goes to the Fathers of Trent for having so well phrased the chapter that the true meaning could not be missed. Why, just to be sure of this and to avoid any chance of misrepresentaion, they concluded the chapter with the actual words of Our Lord,. (John 3:5)

Actually, "they concluded the chapter with the actual words of Our Lord,. (John 3:5)" so that it would be clearly understood that John 3:5 is to be understood in the present context by the words which immediately precede the divine precept (how Justification is effected, by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written;...).

Sorry columba, but your use of the "Fathers of Trent" has no meaning whatsoever. You use it in the abstract as if the "Fathers of Trent", in formulating the declaration on the description of Justification under the [new] law of grace in Session 6, Ch. 4, wanted to convey the opposite of how the declaration would be understood by these same Fathers and theologians, by declaring that its "true" meaning positively precludes anyone from being justified and regenerated into Christ (let alone saved) by the desire for the sacrament, without actual ablution in the laver of regeneration.

Your "theory" has the "Fathers of Trent" making such a declaration, and then going home never to be heard from again as the theologians and scholastics would immediately begin to undermine their true intention by saying the opposite of what it "really" declared.

There is only one problem with such a conspiracy, it is pure fantasy. In the 18th Session of Trent, Charles Borromeo is said to have brought up the question of the Catechism. The Committee for the Catechism was actually appointed during Trent, with Charles Borromeo eventually becoming its President after the death of Cardinal Seripandi, O.S.A. Both of these Ecclesiastics are "Fathers of Trent".

We have the names of the Catechism committee members, to include the names of the Flemish theologians primarily responsible for the section on the sacraments.

Form the Introduction to The Catechism of The Council of Trent (Tan, pg. xxiv), we read:

All those who had part in the work in the Catechism were instructed to avoid in its composition the particular opinions of individuals and schools, and to express the doctrine of the universal Church, keeping especially in mind the decrees of the Council of Trent.

And so, avoiding "in its composition the particular opinions of individuals and schools", the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "keeping especially in mind the decrees of the Council of Trent" in expressing "the doctrine of the universal Church", would teach:

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

Now according to the definition of the Council of Trent, which under pain of anathema we are bound to believe, grace not only remits sin, but is also a divine quality inherent in the soul, and, as it were, a brilliant light that effaces all those stains which obscure the lustre of the soul, investing it with increased brightness and beauty. This is also a clear inference from the words of Scripture when it says that grace is poured forth, and also when it usually calls grace, the pledge of the Holy Ghost.

You see, columba, by the time of Trent, the true doctrine taught in the Schools and by such luminaries as Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas (whose Summa was laid on the altar at the opening Mass of Trent) was not considered to be a "particular opinions of individuals" but an established doctrine of the universal Church -- contested by no one.

The Introduction to the same Roman Catechism of Trent also states:

Meanwhile Pius IV died and was succeeded on January 17, 1566, by Pius V. One of the first acts of the new Pontiff was to appoint a number of expert theological revisors to examine every statement in the Catechism from the standpoint of doctrine. [The names of the chief revisors are then given; one of them being Cardinal Sirlet, another "Father of Trent"] By July of that year the Catechism was finished. But it was not until the close of the year that it appeared under the title, Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos, Pii V Pont. Max. jussu editus.

Just 16 years after the first edition of the Roman Catechism, and 18 years after the first publication of the decrees and canons of Trent, the English College of Rheims printed its English translation of the New Testament, and, in its Annotation for John 3:5, it says in part:

Whereby the Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary; our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound His grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world."

Sound familiar?

The Douay Catechism of 1649 would repeat the same understanding as the "Fathers of Trent" and the Roman Catechism, and the rest is history; without a single dissenting voice from Trent onward, as the numerous authoritative proof texts confirm.

Just one example, of many:

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

Btw, columba, the "Fathers of VCI" understood Sess. 6, Ch. 4 in the exact same sense as the Roman Catechism and the 1917 Codex.

You are paddling upstream without oars, columba, and you are engaged in a specious form of revisionist history that blatantly ignores established facts and clings to this fantastical "conspiracy" that seems to have been lost on the very Fathers of Trent who are supposed to have brushed aside the common doctrine of Aquinas and dogmatically taught a doctrine that is the opposite of how it has always been understood.

columba wrote:

The Da Vinci Code has nothing on you; you keep me in stitches. Will there be a movie? You can get the terrible-twosome in upstate NY to serve as "expert" advisers.

The strange thing is; the Da Vinci Code (which I've never seen nor read) has been swallowed by many a nominal Catholic. This could only occur in a time where the ground has already been prepared in advance. The denial or neglect of dogma being a major part of that groundwork. The upstate NYer's I don't think have contributed to this. They can't be blamed for everything.

And your conspiracy theory on the "true" meaning of Trent's description of Justification has been swallowed by only a handful of nominal Catholics (many more were taken in by the stupid Da Vinci Code silliness). I use "nominal" in the same sense. And it is precisely the denial of facts and of established doctrine that is the root cause for such absurd conspiracies.

columba wrote:

Anyway, here is what I said on this subject a while back:

English translations to the official Latin magisterial texts are not always consistent. But inconsistency does not translate to bad intentions and nefarious agendas, but it may reflect one’s unintended “bias” with respect to one’s own understanding. I think it is safe to say that any “official” translation reflects the honest interpretation of the translator who strives to be as accurate as possible. Since the more “official” translations will be reviewed by a host of theologians and ecclesiastical sources, any translation that is too far off from the “mind of the Church” and its intended meaning of the Latin text will, one may assume, be corrected.

This of course would be true in the normal course of events, however, as I pointed out earlier, the translation of “Pro multis” to “For many,” shows that this is unfortunately not always the case. Remember,we are talking here of a mistranslation involving the Source, Center and Summit of our Faith. If they can get that wrong, what more need be said?

The comparison with the ICEL "pro omnibus" does not hold water (oops), and the Church declared long ago that "pro omnibus" is to be understood in the exact same sense (with the mind of the Church) that is expressed in its official Latin text, which has "pro multis".

However, you are incorrect to assume that the literal translation of "sine" to "without" conveys the same meaning in English as it does in Latin -- it does not, as we shall see.

columba wrote:

Columba, try to get it through your head that a "literal" word-for-word translation from Latin to English does not always convey the best or more precise sense or meaning of a particular passage (as it was intended in the will of the legislator) due to the fact of differences in grammatical rules and the nuance of the Latin language.

Spare me the lesson Mike. I've studied Gaelic, French and some Spanish and what you say is true of many languages. The point is, the word “Without” conveys the true meaning in Session 6, Ch.4 and in a clearer way than “Except through,” especially with the inclusion of John 3:5 dispelling any doubt.

No, I will not spare you the lesson, for you are clearly wrong. You are simply mistaken in your assumption about John 3:5 and the intent of the Fathers, and your linguistic studies did not prepare you to be able recognize the grammatical rules and nuances of Medieval Latin ... and that's just a fact, as your amateurish attempt at a "common sense" translation reveals.

As a professional Medieval Latinsit informed me:

Aut is the strongest disjunction in the Latin language, of all the various disjunctions: aut, vel, sive, etc. Hence why medieval grammarians called it the coniunctio disiunctiva, not the coniunctio subdisiunctiva, or anything else.

If the Fathers of Trent did indeed mean 'or' than there would be no other way to phrase the point without introducing a lengthy periphrasis which would be entirely out of the economical style typical of and proper to the ecclesiastical language.

If the Father did intend a conjuntive meaning, "and," there are many other ways they could have said it and they are guilty of a very bad and informal Latin.

Let me stress once again: there is no other way to phrase this line to make the disiunctive stronger. At the same time, if they intended a conjunctive, there are numerous other ways they could have said.

It is therefore philologically reckless to read this aut as an 'and.'

Second, as to the question of ambiguity, there is none - Either the Father's meant 'or' (as I have shown to be likely) or they meant 'and' (very unlikely) but I bet you that you cannot find a single instance in the Latin language of any period where an author chooses the word 'aut' in order to express an ambiguity between a conjunction and a disjunction.

Furthermore, and more to the point, like you, I once tried to argue:

"Now, the previous example from Session Six Ch. 4 contains a negative ["sine"] which would seem to have to be distributed over the disjunction "Aut". "Sine" means "Without", and the entire passage is in the negative in describing what cannot be lacking for justification: meaning - neither water baptism nor the vow/desire for it can be lacking. No?

NO! The response:

sorry, but in Latin sine is not a negative, even if in English we translate it with one. For the rule to apply you need a genuine negative particle, like non, neque, nec, etc.

Did you catch that, columba? You are making the same mistake I once did by making false assumptions. The problem is that we are not equipped to handle such complexities of translation with our little Latin-English dictionaries and our understanding of the rules of English grammar.

If "sine" is often translated as "except through", it is because (I would guess) the translators wanted to convey the true sense of "sine" and "aut" that "without" does not necessarily convey. And as we can see with your dictionary translation and false assumption, they were perfectly justified in doing so.

As the professional Medievel Latinist (and traditional Catholic) said:

... these rules are difficult, and there is no grammar book in English (or any other for that matter) that can spell out all the rules for you. You just have to spend many years reading Latin texts (a course, by the way, that I would heartily recommend: to put the study of theologia before the study of grammatica is to invert the Christian model of education).

Will you learn the lesson?

columba wrote:

You can mock "the modernist, linguistic geniuses" all you want with your Latin-English dictionary, but you are the one who has a lot to learn.

My bishop knows of my anti baptism of desire stance and as yet has not reproached me concerning it. He may have a lot to learn too but thus far I'm not excluded from the sacraments.

That's nice, but why is this even relevant?

columba wrote:Does anyone know of anyone, anywhere who has been excommunicated for not believeing in baptism of desire/baptism of blood? Mike thinks the Church is neglecting her duty on this matter.

Not at all. This is the old "unless the Church condemns me with excommunication" canard, whereby one feels free to deny a universal doctrine of the Church by denying that it is universal, by denying that it is a doctrine, and by denying that the Church teaches this non-doctrine with any authority whatsoever.

In your case, you deny that anyone can be justified in Christ by faith and charity (without actual ablution), which is pure heterodoxy.

The modernists and liberals do the same thing with the Church doctrines, so continue with your dissent in all good conscience - its all the rage.