Stubborn has made a proposition that directly opposes the doctrine set forth in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius (Vatican I), to wit, that the dogmas are not to be interpreted: "For the doctrine of the Faith which God has revealed ... has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted." (D.S. 3020)

The errors that Stubborn attributes to me are are as gratuitous as they are logically incoherent. He makes no attempt at critical analysis to arrive at his non sequitur conclusions (which are patent nonsense).

Here is the text of the scripture verses I quoted in Greek, that did not convert properly in the posted comment:

"Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

These Gentiles received the grace of the Holy Ghost as the apostles had already, even before water baptism.

The necessity of the grace of the sacraments, i.e., of Justification, is absolutely necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent decrees and canons define that the justification brought about by the sacraments can obtained not only by the reception of the sacraments, but also by the resolve to receive them. Thus, the necessity for justification brought about by the sacraments is absolute; while the necessity to receive those sacraments is a necessity of precept (as the Roman Catechism explains); and is conditional, depending on the the possibility or impossibility to receive them. St. Pius V teaches in his Roman Catechism that the resolve to receive baptism combined with repentance suffices for salvation if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible by some unforseen event. The voluntary omission of the sacrament is not an option. One who has been justified by charity and repentance before baptism is bound by divine precept to receive the sacrament sub gravi, and therefore must have the resolve to receive it. Without that resolve to receive the sacrament there is neither justification nor salvation. The constant post-Tridentine magisterium is unanimous on this point that there must be the firm resolve, at least implicit (as in the case of the Gentile converts in Acts. 10:46-48), for one to be sanctified by Baptism of Desire. This is how the magisterium of the Church has constantly understood and interpreted the decrees and canons of Trent. The Feeneyite interpretation of them is manifestly heretical.

Quote from: Ambrose

A Further Reply to the Heretic Feeneyite:

Mr XXXX,

Your stubborn insistence to argue a point that has already been thoroughly refuted is like the neophyte chess player, whose understanding of the game is so limited that he remains at the board after the master has walked away -- gloating over the narcissistic delusion of victory; not grasping the fact that he has been checkmated by the master.

P.S. You say my words in The Devil's Final Battle prove my hypocricy! (?) You are too much of a coward to even quote those words you attribute to me. I was only a co-author and editor of the first edition. I was so busy writing The Mystery of Iniquity at the time the need had arisen to revise DFB, that I allowed my co-authors to revise and publish the second edition of the book without my involvment. So, how would you know those words are even mine? You don't. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Your foolish observation on justification and salvation is utterly devoid of theological foundation. It is clear from the perpetual doctrinal tradition of the Church and the explicit teaching of Trent that one who has been sanctified by the grace of justification is an heir to the hope of the kingdom if heaven; provided that he not lose that grace and appear before the divine tribunal without it. The Church perpetually has professed that those sanctified by justifying grace will enter heaven on the sole condition that they appear before the divine Judge in the state of grace. This is the perpetual dogma of Catholic faith. Your opinion is HERESY.

The opening post on this thread was an email exchange between myself and Fr. Kramer. Rather than reply to that post, since it contains nothing new, I am posting the last email I received from Fr. Kramer unedited with my replies to his arguments. When compared to the opening post of this thread, you will be able to see that he has trouble addressing any critical comments of his position. His only answer is to repeat himself again and again.

The exchange is lengthy but hopefully worth a look. You will see a good example of how Fr. Kramer willfully destroys dogma by corrupting it in its fundamental nature. It is important to know for two reasons. Firstly, the essential target of Modernism and Neo-modernism is the destruction of dogma. The technique used by Fr. Kramer is not any different in kind than what most Modernist employ. Secondly, the only tool the faithful have to oppose a corrupt authority is the immutable truth of divine revelation, that is, dogma. Traditional Catholics have to know what dogma is. In my opinion, it is because the SSPX shares the same dogmatic theories as Fr. Kramer's that they failed in their "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome to defend the faith or protect the purity of worship.

The quotations taken from The Devil's Final Battle are from the "Advanced Reading Copy" of the first edition. I am not sure what to make of Fr. Kramer's disclaimer that he really did not write significant portions of the book. It is evident is that I did in fact send him a lengthy quotation from the book. Whether or not Fr. Kramer actually wrote this citation, the quotation represents an excellent understanding of the nature of dogma and is worth reading. If Fr Kramer actually wrote is, his present opinions on dogma are a complete betrayal of the faith he once defended.

Drew

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

Leonard Feeney SJ was a highly reputable theoligian, regarded by some to be possessed of the premier theoligical intellect in America -- until he fell into disrepute by professing a doctrine well known not to be of the ancient Sacred Tradition, but what in fact was long known to be just an old heresy professed by a few odd cranks who are scarcely even a footnote of Church History; and whose names have sunk into oblivion.[......]  The Feeneyites have accomplished a diabolical inversion, professing a heresy in order to remain faithful to the dogmas of faith (!).

The censoring of Fr. Feeney's teaching of the Catholic dogma, EENS, was from the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing of Boston and published by him in 1952. It was not published from Rome or ever entered into in the AAS. It has no greater authority than a personal correspondence between two bishops. It was Fr. Karl Rahner S.J., who as editor, entered the docuмent into Denzinger in 1962. From Denzinger it was authoritatively referenced in Lumen Gentium, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, at Vatican II and forms the doctrinal foundation for the new ecclesiology and its moral imperative of ecuмenism. It is also the foundational reference for Rahner's Anonymous Christian theology.
 
The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that any pagan, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., etc., can obtain justification by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' This desire is regarded as evidence of an 'implicit desire of Church membership' from which a person can obtain salvations. This is what I call "salvation by implicit desire." Its necessary corollary is "salvation by justification alone" which holds that nothing more than the state of justification that the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' produces is all that is necessary for salvation.    
 
The two web links you sent me provide an exposition and defense of this teaching of salvation by implicit desire. The Catholic dogmas that explicit faith (cannot be a heretic), submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic), and Church membership (must receive the sacraments) are uniformly set aside. Rather than being treated as dogmatic truths, they are reduced to simple preceptive norms that do not bind in any case of moral, psychological or physical inconvenience. It is a condemned proposition to treat dogmatic truths only as preceptive norms:  

Quote from: St. Pius X

The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing. Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane

The 1949 Holy Office Letter had nothing to do whatsoever with the sacrament of Baptism in re or in voto. Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, editor of American Ecclesiastical Review, published an article in 1952 defending the 1949 Holy Office Letter. In this article Fr. Fenton dates the Church's teaching on 'salvation by explicit desire' to the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine" and he dates the doctrine of 'salvation by implicit desire' to the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The authoritative reference in the 1949 Holy Office Letter for the novel doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire" is a mistranslated citation from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis.
 
These then are the two "dogmas" of your religion:
1) "Salvation by justification alone"
2) "Salvation by implicit desire"

 
With these doctrines you believe that any "good" Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. can obtain justification and salvation by being a "good" Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. Furthermore, you hold that any Catholic who rejects your doctrines on salvation are "in heresy and outside the Catholic Church." This is the plain truth of where Baptism of Desire leads. You are in agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and Pope John Paul II on this doctrine of salvation.  
 

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics

Quote from: Bishop Fellay

And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

Quote from: Pope John Paul II

Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998

Quote from: Pope John Paul II

For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.
John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995

Fr. Feeney held the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be heretical. Only by serious reflection and prayer on the implications of this novel doctrine did he trace the theological problem to its foundation. The problem only apparently has to do with the desire for sacramental baptism as being sufficient for salvation. In the end, Baptism of Desire really is not needed at all by anyone to obtain "salvation by implicit desire." The real argument always distills to the question, What is the nature of dogma? The new theology corrupts dogma in its essential nature.
 
There is nothing new in your last post as far as argument is concerned and again, you do not address the criticisms leveled against your doctrinal belief in "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone." You do however provide more specific details with regard to your beliefs and the theological methods you employ that corrupt Catholic dogma. It is not a surprise that you call Fr. Feeney's doctrine a "diabolical inversion" because you are using your head to stand on rather than to think with. You have adopted the same techniques that Modernist use to destroy Catholic dogma and I hope to demonstrate exactly how you have done it.
 
But before I begin replying to your last email I want to remind you that the method you are now using to corrupt dogma is a complete about-face from what you have previously said regarding the nature of dogmatic truth.  
 
In your book, The Devil's Final Battle, who identified correctly the "Four sources of infallible teaching" none of which pertain to Baptism of Desire. You then offer an excellent exposition on the true nature of Catholic dogma:

Quote from: Fr. Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

Now, for the most part, this assault (on dogma) has been rather indirect. The infallible definition is usually not directly denied, but rather undermined through criticism or "revision." The innovators in the Church are not so stupid as simply to declare that an infallible Church teaching is wrong. And, in their supposed "enlightenment" these innovators may actually think they are "deepening" or "developing" Catholic teaching for the good of the Church - again, we are not judging their subjective motivations.  But the effect of what they do is obvious: the undermining of the infallibly defined teachings of the Magisterium.  
 
Another example of this undermining is the attack on the dogma that ourside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The Tridentine creed, quoted in full above, states: "I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved..."  In Chapter 6 we show how, over and over again, the Magisteriium has solemnly defined the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Yet today, the dogma is denied and undermined by an "ecuмenism" which declares that neither the Protestant heretics nor the Orthodox schismatics need return to the Catholic Church, because this ir "outdated ecclesiology." And in many places today, the dogma is directly denied, and in other places it is not directly denied but in practice it collapses from insidious, repeated, in direct attacks and, as a result, it is no longer believed and followed in those places.[......]
    
There Cannot be a "New Understanding" of Catholic Dogma. This post-conciliar attack on dogma through undermining and implicit contradiction cannot be justified as a "development" or "new insight" into dogma. As the First Vatican Council solemnly taught: "For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostle and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."  Further, as Vatican I taught, there cannot be any "new understanding" of what the Church has already infallibly defined. [....] Therefore, this "new" doctrine can only be pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine contradicts doctrines that have been infallibly defined, then Catholics must cling to the infallible doctrines and reject the "new" doctrines. The dogma of the Faith cannot fail; but novelties can fail us.  Men can fail; lay people can fail; priests can fail; bishops can fail; Cardinals can fail; and even the Pope can fail in matters which do not involve his charism of infallibility, as history has shown us with more than one Pope who taught or appeared to teach some novelty. [.....] From these examples in Church history we learn that everything proposed to us for our belief must be judged by those definitions. And so if a Cardinal , a bishop, a priest, a layman or even the Pope teaches us some novelty that is contrary to any definition of the Faith (dogma), we can know that the teaching is wrong and that it must be rejected for the salvation of our immortal souls. Yes even the Pope can fail, and he does fail in he expresses an opinion that is contrary to a solemn, infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean the Church fails when this happens, but only that the Pope has made a mistake without imposing it on the whole Church.  And, of course, if even the Pope can make a mistake in teaching some novelty, then certainly Cardinals, bishops, and priests can make mistakes in their teaching and opinions.[......]
 
To summarize, truth is not a matter of numbers or rank; truth is a matter of what Christ and God have revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, what has been solemnly defined by the Catholic Church, and what the Catholic Church has always taught - taught always, not just since 1965!

The Disastrous Effects of Tampering With Infallible Definitions. History likewise provides us with a prime example of what can happen to the Church when even one dogma is contradicted on a wide scale.  The heresy of Arianism caused catastrophic confusion in the Church from 336 A.D. to 381 A.D. [.........]
 
Infallible Definitions Are Higher than Any Learning or Rank in the Church. Why did Athanasius know he was right? Because he clung to the infallible definition (dogma), no matter what everyone else said. Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful, clinging to an infallible definition (dogma), will know more than the most "learned" theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of the Church's infallibly defined teaching - to make us independent of the mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.  Now, in 325 the solemn definition of the Council of Nicea was infallible, but many people then did not fully realize that solemn definitions of the Faith were infallible. That is, at this time in Church history the Church had not yet issued the solemn definition teaching that the definitions of Faith are infallible. But in 1870, the First Vatican Council solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of the Church's solemn definitions. Now we know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible.  Once again: they cannot fail - ever.
 
The Infallible Definitions Are Under Attack in Our Time. In our day, therefore, there is no excuse for being taken in by heresy and giving up the defense of solemn definitions. But that is precisely what is happening today, just as in the time of Arius. Churchmen are judging things in light of the Second Vatican Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions. They have forgotten that the infallible definitions, not Vatican II, are the unchanging standard by which on measures every doctrine, just as a 36-inch yardstick is the unchanging standard for measuring a yard.
Fr. Paul Kramer, The Devil's Final Battle

Dogma, as detailed in your book, The Devil's Final Battle, is:    
1) A divinely revealed TRUTH by God, Who can neither deceive or be deceived.
2) A TRUTH of divine revelation that has been defined by the Church.
3) Dogma is expressed in the form of universal categorical propositions that admit only of being everywhere and always true or everywhere and always false.
4) Dogmas are by definition immutable and unchangeable.
5) Dogmas are formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith.
6) Dogmas are NOT maxims or axioms.
7) Dogmas mark the end of theological speculation.
8) The tools needed for correct understanding of dogma are proper definition and correct grammar.  


This was written by you more than 12 years ago. The only criticism I or Fr. Feeney might offer is the reference to the year 1965 as the beginning of dogmatic corruption. The very essence of the heresy of Modernism and Neo-modernism is the destruction of dogma. The work was well underway by 1965.  But what has happened to you in these last 12 years so that you should take an complete contrary attitude towards dogma so as to reject its literal meaning so that you can accept such beliefs as "salvation by implicit desire" and "salvation by justification alone"?  
 
When the nature of dogma is understood then it is easy to see how you corrupt it to arrive at your doctrinal novelties.

Catholic dogmas for salvation require:

1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),  
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),  
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)
 
which are all necessary as necessities of means to obtain salvation. You get around the problem the same way as Modernists do like Fr. Karl Rahner in his Anonymous Christian theology, that is, by corrupting dogma in its very nature.

You, like the Modernists, corrupt dogma by:  
1) calling things "dogmas" that are not,  
2) by changing the meaning of dogmatic terminology,  
3) and by corrupting the grammar of dogmatic propositions.  

Quote from:  Pius IX

Dogmas are formulated for all the faithful:[Dogma] by the very sense by which it is defined must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful.  Pope Pius IX, Inter Gravissimas Afflictiones, Oct. 28, 1870

Quote from: Gregory XVI

Let nothing of the truths that have been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added, but let them be preserved intact, in word and meaning.  
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos

Quote from: Pius XII

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth.  The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.  
Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953

 

Quote from: Dogmatic Canons of Trent

Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Canon 33. If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.

 
Errors in the treatment of dogma in your posts:
1) You affirm that the doctrinal and moral opinions of Doctors of the Church are necessarily free from all error because the Church has declared them "doctors."
2) You regard theological opinions as "dogmas" because they are commonly held.
3) You insist that the narratives from Trent are the "dogmas."  
4) You insist that you interpretation of the narratives justify a non-literal explanation of dogmatic canons.

Now, some comments on your last reply.

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

"Canon 4 of Session 7 precisely specifies exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation: The canon fulminates the anathema against anyone who says that the sacraments are superfluous, and not necessary for salvation. It also specifies precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary; and that reason is that without the sacraments or the votum of them, justification cannot be obtained. Salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification which cannot be obtained without the sacraments or the votum of them."

 

Every canon is in the form of a categorical universal proposition that can only be always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. The canon does not "specify exactly in what manner the sacraments are necessary for salvation." The canon in question does not "specify precisely the reason why they are absolutely necessary." This canon 4 contains two dogmatic categorical propositions. The propositions are distinct independent clauses. They say nothing whatsoever about the "manner" or the "reason" that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, or for justification. The dogma is not offering an argument. The word uniting the two propositions is "and," which is a coordinating conjunction, it is not the subordinating conjunction "because," which would make the second proposition a subordinate clause. But that is how you are interpreting the canon as if the one proposition is offered as an explanation for the other.
 
The canon declares that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. If you deny it, anathema sit. It also declares that sacraments, or at least the desire of them, are necessary of justification. If you deny it, anathema sit. When you say, "salvation, according to the canon, hinges entirely on justification....," you simply are corrupting the literal meaning of the text. Nowhere does it say anything like "salvation hinges entirely on justification." The canon offers no explanation on the relationship between "justification" and "salvation." If you like, I will diagram the two distinct propositions that are anathematized so you can visualize the relationships.  If you just stare at a correct diagram you will see that your interpretation is impossible.

In an earlier exchange you said that the "necessity" in the dogma was a "moral necessity." In doing this you have changed the necessity for the sacraments from a necessity of means to necessity of precept. That is very helpful for because a necessity of precept is always conditional. When this is added to changing the coordinating conjunction "and" with the subordinating conjunction "because."  Thus we get Fr. Kramer's new dogma on the sacraments:
 

Quote from: Canon 4, Rework of Fr. Kramer

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not (morally) necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that (because) without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

This is a specific example of corrupting dogma. The reason given for it is that you interpret the dogma in a manner to conform with your understanding of the non-dogmatic narrative. You corrupt the narrative twice.  First by taking a single sentence out of the context of the narrative to affirm you belief in "salvation by justification alone."  And secondly, by giving your interpretation of the narrative the authority to judge the dogmatic canon. The dogma is the divinely revealed truth, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that provides the key to proper understanding of the narrative on Justification.  

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification sets forth dogmatically the reason why only one who is reborn of water and the Holy Ghost can enter the kingdom of heaven, which is that such a one has been justified by the laver of regenerstion or the votum of it. Again, it is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.":
Session 6 Decree on Justification, Chapter 4 - Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest sicut scriptum est: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.

The Decree on Justification is not a dogma. It is a narrative explanation on the Catholic doctrine of Justification. The dogmas are the canons that follow the narrative explanation. Only the canons are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. If you have any question of conflict between the narrative and the canons, the narrative is interpreted in light of the canon and not vice-versa. The narrative can only offer help in the proper definition of canonical terminology. The tools for understanding dogma are proper definition and correct grammar. You are using the lesser authority to corrupt the greater authority. When everything is said and done you have eviscerated the dogma so its non-literal meaning will not interfere you belief.

Canon 2 on the sacraments declares as an infallible formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," must be understood just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." This declaration of divine truth is in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits of only being either always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false.  

You said, "It is dogmatically set forth that salvation depends on being in the justified state by means of baptism or its votum; and that this is what is meant by the words, "Unless one be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." It is always amazing how you can say, "It is dogmatically set forth..." and yet never quote any dogma. Why? Because the dogma does not say this. It is dogmatically set forth that salvation necessarily depends on the sacrament of Baptism. The sacrament is the form and matter. It is dogmatically set forth that justification necessarily depends on the sacrament of Baptism or its desire. Nothing is said about "salvation by justification alone." The literal words of our Lord require that baptism is necessary for salvation.
 
The narrative on Justification explains chronologically how a person progresses from a sinful state of faithless ignorance separated from God to a state justification and hopeful salvation. It is necessary for you to make "salvation by justification alone" a "dogma" because ultimately your belief in "salvation by implicit desire" requires it. You believe that a man who 'believes in a god who rewards and punishes with an ethic to do that god's will' is thereby justified and that, by itself, is the necessary and sufficient cause for eternal salvation.  
 
So stop pretending to be defending some ancient truth. You do not believe that the sacraments are necessary in "votum" or in "re" for either justification or salvation. You believe in "salvation by justification alone" and you believe that this state of "justification" can be effected in anyone who "desires to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes." The sacraments have nothing to do with what you believe.

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

It is then dogmatically affirmed in Chaprer 7 that it is by the grace of justification that one is made an heir (heres) of the kingdom of heaven.  
Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem iustificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est sola peccatorum remissio sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae.
     And therefore, one who brings the sanctifying grace of justification before the judgment seat of God will enter into eternal life: Unde et statim verbum Christi audiunt: si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. Itaque veram et christianam iustitiam accipientes eam ceu primam stolam pro illa quam Adam sua inobedientia sibi et nobis perdidit per Christum Iesum illis donatam candidam et immaculatam iubentur statim renati conservare ut eam perferant ante tribunal Domini nostri Iesu Christi et habeant vitam aeternam.
   Thus it is dogmatically defined that one is justified by means of the sacrament of baptism or its votum, and that one who has been thus sanctified by justifying grace becomes an heir to the kingdom of heaven; and finally those who present themselves before the judgment seat of Our Lord Jesus Christ, having this grace, will enter eternal life.

You are saying nothing here that you have already said, that is, you are affirming that the narrative on Justification teaches "salvation by justification alone" therefore the dogmatic canons must be taken in a non-literal sense to conform with your doctrine. You are still making the same mistakes over and over again hoping that just by iteration alone you can make the truth out of a lie. The narrative is not the dogma. The dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and must be understood in its literal formulation. The dogma is infallible and immutable. When you say, the narrative teaches 'salvation by justification alone' you are taking a sentence entirely out of context. Not just out of context with the entire narrative but with the specific paragraph in which it is found. The subject of the narrative who obtains 'salvation by justification alone' is one who has already been sacramentally baptized. And when the narrative speaks about justification alone being sufficient for salvation, it is specifically referring to someone who has been "justified in this manner" previously described. What "manner"? The "manner" of receiving the sacrament of baptism, the "instrumental cause" of the person's justification.

What is your problem? If you want to make issue with my explanation than do so. Do not simply repeat the same thing over and over and over again. It adds nothing to it. Read the canons. Once you have memorized them, then read the narratives. And when you get to part that you think teaches "salvation by justification alone" read the dogmas again.

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

Hence, it is in this manner that the sacrament of baptism is the instrunental cause of justification and therefore necessary for salvation:
Huius iustificationis causae sunt: finalis quidem gloria Dei et Christi ac vita aeterna; efficiens vero misericors Deus qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat signans et ungens spiritu promissionis sancto qui est pignus haereditatis nostrae; meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitus suus Dominus noster Iesus Christus qui cuм essemus inimici propter nimiam charitatem qua dilexit nos sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit; instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi quod est sacramentum fidei sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio

.

This is only true if your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" is true. It is not. And the reason we know for certain that it is not is because of Canon 4 which says, the 'sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation.' The "sacrament" is the form and the matter by definition. You claim that the "sacraments" are only necessary for salvation because they are necessary for justification. And once justified by desire for the sacraments then their actual reception is in fact not necessary for salvation.  What you end up doing is affirming the exact opposite of what the canon dogmatically affirms. This is so common with Modernists that it is axiomatic. The canon does not say "why" or "because" or offer any reason whatsoever. It declares as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that the "sacraments are necessary for salvation." You corrupt the literal meaning of the canon because you do not believe what God has revealed. It says in the Decree of Justification that "without faith, it is impossible to please God." Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God. Dogmas are divine revelation. The definition of heresy is the rejection of a single dogma.

Again, what does this really have to do with your belief in "salvation by implicit desire"? All your babble is just one big begging of the question. Justification by "implicit desire" is caused by the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' Again, the sacraments in votum or in re are not necessary for justification in your belief. And neither is faith in any revealed truth or submission to the Roman Pontiff for that matter.

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

In this text of the Decree it is defined that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross merited for us the grace of justification. It is precisely for this reason, (as St. Thomas explains), that the unity of the sacrament is not destroyed, because whether by water or votum, the grace of justification has for its efficient cause the merciful God who washes and sanctifies by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and the meritorious cause, the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross. Thus justification is accomplished by the instrumentality of the sacrament of baptism, or the votum of it. This doctrine of baptism by water or votum dogmatically set forth by the Council of Trent, comes straight out of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas -- a copy of which was placed on the desks of all the council fathers of Trent. Justification by votum without the water of baptism is possible because the almighty power of God is not restricted to visible sacraments:
“the sacrament of baptism can be lacking in reality but not in desire, as happens when a person desires to be baptized but chances to die before receiving baptism. Such a person can attain salvation without actually being baptized because of his desire for baptism which comes from faith working through love, through which God, whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, inwardly sanctifies a man.  
Summa Theologiae III, 68, 2)
It is patent, therefore, that, according to the doctrine of Trent, that the necessity of means of the sacraments for salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification which cannot be obtained without the instrumentality of the sacraments or the votum of them; and hence, the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent cannot be construed to exclude  justification by means of votum of the sacraments without the actual recepton of the sacraments, or that the grace of justification thus obtained does not suffice for salvation; otherwise the Council of Trent would have erred in its teaching that salvation hinges directly on the grace of justification and that one who appears before the divine tribunal with this justifying grace enters eternal life; and it would have erred as well for teaching that justification can take place by the sacrament of water or the votum of it; and the doctrine of Session 14 on the Sacrament of Pennance, which explicitly sets forth the teaching that reconciliation of the sinner can take place by an act of perfect contrition, which includes the votum before the reception of the sacrament, would likewise be erroneous; as well as canon 4 of Session 7 which defines that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely for the reason that without them or the votum of them, the grace of justification cannot be obtained, would similarly be erroneous. (And thus is exposed the sophistry of the fallaciously asserted proposition that I have reduced the necessity of means to a necessity of precept, since the necessity of means for justification and salvation is clearly estsblished by the Council of Trent to be the reception of the sacraments or the votum; both of which receive their efficacy from the unction and grace of the Holy Ghost freely bestowed upon men; and  from the merits of the most holy passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the wood of the cross.)
   The Council's teaching on justification and salvation has always been interpreted in this sense, and never according to the heretical interpretation of the Feeneyites; firstly, because the doctrinal tradition of BOB/BOD was already well estsblished in the writings of popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church before the Council of Trent; and secondly, since the Council Fathers were firmly rooted in that tradition (already unanimous for centuries by the time of the Council of Trent), they gave dogmatic expression and authority to the doctrine of BOB/BOD by dogmatically affirming explicitly the premises and conclusion of that teaching in the canons and decrees of that Council. Thus, since the Council of Trent, the popes have explicitly taught BOB and especially BOD in their discourses, encyclicals and catechisms, and they have canonized and declared Doctors of the Church those sainted theologians  who with clarity and persuasion taught the doctrine of BOD and affirmed it to be de fide.  
    The post-Tridentine popes especially have unanimously taught BOB/BOD sometimes explicitly in their own magisterium, such as Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, ( Pius IX: Quanto Conficiamur Maerore, 1863), St. Pius X in the catechusm which he imposed on the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome: (Catechism of Christian Doctrine"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized), Pius XII in his Address to Midwives of Oct. 29, 1951:
(Without it, [Baptism] it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.”)
    St. Pius V directly authotized the propagation of the doctrine of BOD by ordering the publication of the Roman Catechism which teaches it. Pope Clement XIII declared in his Encyclical In Dominico Agro (1761) that the Roman Catechism is free from error, and that its teachings are of the universal magisterium. Thus, the Roman Catechism which teaches BOD became the basis for all the subsequent catechisms that teach BOB/BOD, and which have universally been imposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the dioceses and ecclesiastical provinces thruought the world.

The Catechism of Trent has the same authority as the current Catechism of the Catholic Church which you hold to be teaching error. Catechism are not infallible. The CCC teaches Baptism of Desire and Baptism and of Blood but affirms that, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'" Theological opinions are permitted but they are not formal objects of faith because they have not been revealed by God. That is why the "Church does not know of any means other than Baptism."

How often do we hear that "God is not restricted to visible sacraments" and those who say He is are trying to limit the power of God? This accusation would be true if sacramental baptism were only a simple necessity of precept because all precepts are conditional and God is not bound by his laws. But the necessity of Baptism is first and foremost a divinely revealed truth, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. God is not bound by His laws but He has bound Himself to His revealed truth. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31) Those who deny that the sacraments are necessary for salvation do not believe that God possess the power to save within the economy of salvation that He has revealed. Man gives glory to God by believing His revealed truth.  
 
The amazing thing about dogma is that it expresses the divinely revealed truth of God independently of the intent or understanding of those who promulgate it. It has nothing to do with the mind of the lawgiver because it is not a law, it is a truth, and the mind that reveals this truth is God.

Quote from: Fr.Kramer

 It was not by accident that the Roman Catechism became the basis for the subsequent catechisms of the universal Church, which unanimously teach BOB/BOD. Pope Pius IV immediately after the Council of Trent estsblished the Sacra Congregatio Cardinalium pro executione et interpretatione concilii Tridentini interpretum,
 in 1564, which thereafter became commonly known as the Sacred Congregation of the Council. In January 1588, Pope Sixtus V, (who had declared the BOD teaching St. Bonaventure a doctor of the Church), expanded the Congregations jurisdiction, entrusting to it the proper interpretation of the Council's canons, resolving controversial questions relating to it. To the jurisdiction of the Congregation of the Council pertained also the examining of the doctrinal content;  and correcting, and authorizing all official catechisms to be imposed by the magisterial authority of the particular churches and ecclesiastical provinces throughout the world. So it was this dicastery, the Congregation of the Council, encharged  with delegated papal authority to interpret the canons of the Council of Trent; and to examine and authorize the publication of catechisms, (such as the Douai Catechism of 1649 which explicitly teaches BOB/BOD), which directly broght about  the propagation of the magisterial teaching of BOB/BOD throughout the world, under the watchful eyes of the post-Tridentine popes.
   Thus it is patent that BOB/BOD has been universally taught.

All you have demonstrated is that the salvation by Desire for Baptism is a common opinion. It most certainly was not a "universal" opinion held by the Church because the Church Fathers who discussed the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for salvation did not teach it. That is all that is needed to establish that it is not a teaching of the "ordinary and universal Magisterium." It was not until St. Bernard took this teaching from his misunderstanding of Ss. Augustine and Ambrose that the doctrine became generally known. It most certainly is not a teaching of the extra-ordinary Magisterium either. Fr. Fenton says the doctrine of salvation by explicit desire became the generally accepted Church teaching at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. That is about 1600 years after the first Pentecost. I have already given examples of the Church permitting the acceptance of errors to be generally held such as, the eternal punishment of non-baptized infants for 800 years, the general acceptance of Copernican cosmology in opposition to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers, the words of Sacred Scripture and the condemnation of Galelio, the toleration of biological evolution in opposition to Vatican I, and the general belief that liturgy is merely a disciplinary matter in opposition to the dogma of Trent and the immemorial traditions in every Catholic rite. Each one of these errors are contrary to divine revelation but tolerated by the Church. On the other hand what is now a dogma of faith, the Immaculate Conception, was actively suppressed by St. Bernard among the Cistercians and St. Thomas' teaching on the doctrine was in error.
 
But to the point, the historical understanding of Baptism of Desire is the teaching that you are pushing which is an explicit votum to receive the sacrament. It is the common bait and switch of a charlatan.  You use this common theological opinion admitting to the possibility of salvation in a person who holds the Catholic faith, is subject to the Roman Pontiff and has a "votum" to receive the sacraments. This is what I term "salvation by explicit desire." This is the bait. The switch is for "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone."  
 
You teach "salvation by implicit desire" along with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay and John Paul II. A novel doctrine in the Church that is around 60 years old by Fr. Fenton's estimation. This is the doctrinal teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter that censored Fr. Feeney who you call a "heretic." You believe that the only thing a person has to do to be saved is to 'believe in a god who rewards and punishes with a will to do what that god wants.' Someone like Fr. Feeney just gets in the way.

Quote from: Fr. Kramer

You scoff at the magistetial authority of the liturgy, and dismiss the teaching of BOB in the Roman Martyrology with heretical contempt. The doctrines set forth in the sacred liturgy are the law of belief. Already, Pope St. Celestine I (422 - 432) declared, "Statuat legem credendi lex orandi." The popes have repeated this dictum of papal magisterium for more than one and a half millenia, yet you dismiss it as nothing. The doctrine of BOB is clearly taught in both the Roman Martyrology and the Roman Breviary. This liturgy is an extension of the lityrgy of the Mass, which is "the most important organ of the ordinary magisterium" (Piys XI, Quas Primas, 11.12.1925).
   The Roman Martyrology commemorates:  
1) St. Emerentiana, a catechumen who was stoned for praying at the tomb of her martyr foster sister, St. Agnes.
2) At Braga, St. Victor, a catechumen who refused to worship an idol, and was tortured and beheaded, "and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."
3) At Verulam in England the companion of St. Alban, who was one of the soldiers leading the martyr to execution, and was converted along the way; "and merited to be baptized in his own blood." The Martyrology also adds, "St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."
4) At Alexandria, the holy martyr, St. Heraclides, a catechumen.
    The Roman Breviary affirms that St. Emerentiana was still a catechumen, but was "baptized in her own blood." By scoffing at the account of her holy martrydom, like a true heretic, you spit on the tomb of a holy martyr whose feast is celebrated in the Roman Missal, and on the tombs of all the other holy martyrs whom the Church has professed, since the most ancient times, to have been baptized in their own blood.

Such language as "scoff," "heretical contempt," and "spit"! And from what does your vulgarity flow? It certainly is not a concern for the revealed truth of God. If you are making a solid case, the evidence itself would heap the "scoff" and "contempt" without your pushing it along. You say correctly that, "doctrines set forth in the sacred liturgy are the law of belief," but nowhere in the Roman Martyrology does it affirm the doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" nor is there sufficient evidence in these narratives to conclude that these martyrs were not baptized. That presupposition of a necessarily non-baptized catechumen is provided entirely by you. You, because you believe in "salvation by justification alone."  Therefore, to prove your doctrine, these martyrs could not have possibly been baptized.  
 
On what evidence? Because they were called "catechumens"? Suppose I were to tell you that St. Emerentiana was baptized before she died and I know that on reliable authority. Would my testimony be any less credible that the evidence we have? There are several legends extant regarding her martyrdom including one where she dies some time after the injury. Was the stoning witnessed by any faithful Catholics? By this time a very large percentage of the population. Was she one of the advanced catechumens, the neophyti, who were undergoing catechetical instruction after baptism? Jean Cardinal Danielou, in his book, Baptism and the Liturgy, said that many early Christians continued in their instruction as "catechumens" for years after their baptism. And St. Ambrose said to a group of baptized catechumens, "I know very well that many things still have to be explained.  It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized.  However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated.  For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts" (On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments). It is known that the baptism of catechumens was often anticipated during times of severe persecution?  
 
Consider the history of the converted Executioner who was martyred with St. Alban. Now St. Bede is recoding this history from legend more than 400 years after the fact.  In the legend the Executioner is converted when a miracle occurs while crossing a stream. The stream "dries up" to permit passage for the entire town is present to witness the martyrdom. The throng proceeds another half mile to the top of a hill from which St. Alban produces a miraculous spring of water. What is the water from the spring for?  Was the "thirst" of St. Alban like our Lord's thirst with the Samaritan woman at the well? What is to prevent St. Alban from baptizing this Executioner? There is nothing from the evidence to tell what happened between the Executioners conversion at the stream and eventual martyrdom with St. Alban some time later. How many Catholics were among the witnesses from the town? You do not know nor does this history relate any variable details. Baptism is a common metaphor for martyrdom. It does not necessarily mean the martyr was not already sacramentally baptized as in the case of Ss. James and John being "baptized with the baptism" that Jesus was "baptized."  
 
Little details are known from historical legends but our faith can provide the missing essentials. There is no way to tell through natural inquiry using the available historical evidence if or if not these martyrs were baptized before they died. Only the light of faith can shed additional exposition on the question. This is the difference between me and you. I bring what can be known with certainty from the truths of the Catholic faith to these legends and you do not. I known by faith that the divine Providence of God is unfailing, that God has revealed that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, that this Executioner died for the faith and is counted among the martyrs, water was present and so was St. Alban and possibly many other Catholics. I know through the certainty of faith that this martyr was baptized. You bring something else to this narrative to fill in the unknown details and what you bring undermines the verities that God has revealed. And for what purpose? None other than it can be used to help with your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone." Who is it then that holds the truths of our faith in "heretical contempt" and "spits" upon the revealed truth of God?
 
The fact of the matter is that there are many, many examples where God has performed miracles to bring the sacrament of baptism to those who hold explicit Catholic faith and are subject to the Roman Pontiff to prevent them from dying without the sacrament. Many of these miracles were verified and docuмented by eye witnesses at the time of the events. Why? Why has God performed such miracles again and again which includes even the raising the unbaptized catechumens from the dead to receive the necessary sacrament? These legends date from the time of St. Peter's calling forth a miraculous spring in the Mamertine prison to relatively modern journals of the American and Asian missionaries. Why? If the sacrament is necessary for salvation, everyone of these miracles makes perfect sense. If the sacrament can be substituted with other metaphorical equivalents such as "desire" then they become meaningless.  
 
So how does your treatment of dogma compare with the condemnation of St. Pius X against the Modernists?
 
St. Pius X, Lamentabili, Condemned Propositions
In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.  St. Pius X, Lamentabili
Fr. Kramer said "Dogma develops over centuries and milennia, as it is formulated by theologians and set forth, and explained by the ordinary magisterium."

4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures. CONDEMNED
The Church has dogmatically declared that the words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...." must be taken just as literally as the words, "This is My Body... This is My Blood."  This "genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures" is denied by you.

22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. CONDEMNED
You use private interpretation of the narratives to pass judgment on the infallible dogmas changing their literal meaning whenever needed to support your doctrine.
 
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. CONDEMNED
The words, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...." must be taken literally is a "fact" the Church holds as "most certain" and you do not.  The literal grammatical construct of our Lord's words is that of a universal categorical proposition that is true for all men and for all time. You posit an opposition between our Lord's words and the defined dogma that requires a metaphorical interpretation of the words.  
 
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves . CONDEMNED
Your "premises" of "salvation by implicit desire" and its necessary corollary, "salvation by justification alone," lead to the non-literal interpretation of dogma.
 
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing. CONDEMNED
You have claimed that the "necessity" of the sacraments for salvation is a "moral necessity" and not a necessity of means.  A "moral necessity" is a necessity of precept.
 
It is Jesus Christ who has institute the sacraments and made them necessary for salvation:
Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.  
Mark 16:15-16
 
Amen, Amen, I say to you: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.  
John 3: 5
 
The Catholic religion is founded by the Man-God Jesus Christ. It is an incarnational religion that effects the salvation of both body and soul through membership in a visible Church. Original sin is transmitted through the flesh and it is by virtue of Jesus suffering in the flesh that redemption is accomplished. The sacrament of Baptism seals the person in both his body and soul. In both these propositions our Lord gives equal grammatical weigh to material and spiritual objects as necessary for salvation. In the first case, "belief" and "baptism" are placed together for salvation. In the second, "water" and "Holy Ghost" are together for salvation. What God has bound together no man has any right to separate. It is grammatically impossible to argue that the Holy Ghost must be taken literally and that water may be taken metaphorically. The same is true for "faith" and "baptism." It is from this marriage of terms that the Church has always referred to baptism as the "sacrament of faith." The second quote is now a dogma of divine and Catholic faith that it must be understood in a literal sense and any metaphorical interpretation is anathematized.  
 
Even Dr. Ludwig Ott says that "Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is "de fide" since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men, without exception, for salvation." He says regarding Baptism of Desire and Blood that it is "sententia fidei proxima" (a proposition proximate to the Faith).  How he juggles contrary propositions is unknown but what is clear is that the teaching of Baptism of Desire, even explicitly, is not de fide. Yet you insist that these doctrine speculations must are "de fide." As I said before, if there were de fide Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated for heresy. He was not. He was reconciled to the Church without any abjuration of heresy. The communities he founded who defend his teaching are in communion with their local ordinaries in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Heresy is the rejection of a dogma. The only "dogma" Fr. Feeney rejected is the only one you believe.    
 
This is really the heart of the problem you have with Fr. Feeney. Fr. Feeney was censored by the 1949 Holy Office Letter for his defense of the dogma, EENS. He was censored because his understanding of the dogma EENS directly opposed the teaching of "salvation by implicit desire" and its corollary, "salvation by justification alone." This condemnation of Fr. Feeney's teaching has nothing to do with Fr. Feeney's opinion regarding the sacrament of Baptism for when this Letter was written in 1949, he had said nothing at all on the subject of the sacraments. The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of Baptism either in votum or in re. This history is important because it shows what a sham your arguments are. Fr. Feeney may be the first in the history of the Church called a "heretic" by the unthinking mob before he ever adopted any of their supposed "heresy."  
 
The internet links you sent me to defend your doctrine and your charges against Fr. Feeney as an 'irrational heretic' teach and defend the novel doctrine of salvation contained in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The 1949 Holy Office Letter that articulates your understanding of soteriology teaches "salvation by implicit desire." It says that a person with an explicit 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' thereby has an "implicit desire" to be a member of the Church and can obtain salvation. This is what I call, "salvation by implicit desire." THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING.  
 
In adopting "salvation by implicit desire" you disregard or directly corrupt the dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and the sacraments are necessary for salvation as necessities of means. Since you have made no effort to understand the problem let me restate it in as simply as the subject matter will permit.  
 
The first thing that stands out in your posted reply is there is not a single dogma quoted as an authoritative reference. I know, and so will everyone else, that if there were a single dogma of divine and Catholic faith that supported anything you believe we would know it. The reason seems is clear that dogma is quoted when it helps your argument, such as in your excellent books on the Liturgy and The Devil's Final Battle. But in this exchange, you take an entirely different attitude to dogma. It is no longer the authoritative bench mark of revealed truth but the play ground for theological exploration. Before, dogma was the end of theological speculation. Now, it

...

The first point is that those who believe in "salvation by implicit desire" like you do, are radically opposed to the teaching of Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus, and Robert Bellarmine. All three of these saints had different variations on the teaching but each believed that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff and a "votum" to receive the sacrament was necessary for salvation. The difference between these saints and Fr. Feeney is trivial, absolutely trivial, when compared to your belief in "salvation by implicit desire" in which those who profess a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' is all that is required for a state of justification and ultimate salvation. The knowledge of a 'god who rewards and punishes' can be known by natural philosophy. The ethic to be conformed to the will of this god could be said of any ethical system. Those like you who believe in this doctrine of "salvation by implicit desire" discard entirely or intentionally corrupt the meaning of the defined dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that explicit faith, the sacraments and submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary, as necessities of means, for salvation. It should surprise no one when those who follow this doctrine end up at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. After all, everyone at the Prayer Meeting could be said to have a 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.' If they are then justified, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and open to receive salvation, why not pray with them?  
 
This is your belief. And from this naked position how you [could] have the effrontery to hypocritically call anyone a "heretic" and "irrational" is fantastic. But like the doctrine itself, it is the common response to condemn anyone who questions their novel doctrine. It is a mystery to me how you could have written The Devil's Final Battle and The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
 
Drew

By-golly where did all the Feenyites come from.