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.

You say:

1) "The term 'Baptism of Desire' is a term that has never been defined by the Church and, as I have explained to you, it has many different shades of understanding which includes the doctrine of Fr. Karl Rahner's Annonymous Christian that makes everyone a "Christian" by virtue of the Incarnation."

I answer saying:

Baptism of Desire has been defined by the ordinary magisterium. Its principles in which consist the premises and conclusion of BOD are dogmatically set forth by the Council of Trent. On that basis St. Pius V taught BOD in the Roman Catechism, the post-Tridentine Doctors taught it in their works; the post-Tridentine popes authorized it to be taught throughout the world, and some of them taught it explicitly in the exercise of their ordinary magisterium. The doctrine must be understood according to the meaning and sense that has been set forth by the ecclesiastical magisterium, and not according to the opinions of Karl Rahner and his ilk. Moreover, your argument is a red herring: Even terms such as "Transubstantiation", "Immaculate Conception", "Hypostatic Union" needed centuries of theological developnent to take place before they could be defined. Even the term "Trinity" was totally absent from the works of the earliest writers of Catholic doctrine. Your argument is worthless and nonsensical; and only underscores the the already obvious reality that you are incapable of formulating a logically coherent theological argument.

Furthermore, you, like the more rabid of Feeneyites desperately argue that the Roman Catechism does not teach Baptism of Desire, claiming that it only teaches justification by votum; while not teaching salvation by that means. First, it must be noted that Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification already defined that those who have been justified by the laver of regeneration or the votum of it, have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost; and Chapter 7 defines that those who have been thus justified, and bring that grace with them before the divine Judge will enter heaven. The question was already definitively closed; and no further explication was necessary on this point. The Roman Catechism (which I quote in its original language) teaches exactly the same doctrine; to wit, that the resolve alone for baptism, combined with repentance, can effect the reception of grace and justification in the case that the cleansing of sacramental water becomes impossible : In caso improvviso di pericolo, chi ha l'uso della ragione, pur impossibilitato a purificarsi nell'acqua sacramentale, può conseguire la grazia e la giustizia col semplice proposito di ricevere a suo tempo il Battesimo, unito al pentimento dei peccati commessi.

And (in the official Latin text) that it is by obtaining grace and justification through Jesus Christ, that one obtains salvation: "per Christum Dominum possunt gratiam et iustitiam consequi, ut regnent in vita."

The first of these two passages treats specifically of some unforseen circuмstance that causes not the mere delay of the reception of baptism, but which renders the reception of baptism "impossible". The context of this teaching is established in the previous section which insists on the importance of not delaying infant baptism because children are particularly exposed to the danger of death; and it is impossible except by the actual reception of the sacrament, for infants to receive the grace and justification to enter heaven -- and baptism, therefore, must not be delayed because infants have no other remedy for salvation: "Nam cuм pueris infantibus nulla alia salutis comparandae ratio . . .", but for adults, "a different method is to be followed" -- because they do have another remedy for salvation: for adults, who are endowed with the use if reason, there is not the same danger of delaying baptism as there is for infants; because if baptism becomes impossile for adults, they can receive the grace and justification (which in the preceeding article is stated to be the requisite to enter heaven), if they have repentance for their sins and the firm resolve and intention to receive baptism: "Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, cuм illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male ac- tae vitae paenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat quominus salutari aqua ablui possint."

Hence, it is absolutely clear from the text of the Roman Catechism that salvation can be obtained for adults by Baptism of Desire if the reception of the sacrament is rendered impossible. This Catechism was compiled under the direction of St. Charles Borromeo, who organized the final sessions of the Council of Trent; and was promulgated by St. Pius V, who was a most eminent Council Father and a high official of the Roman Inquisition during the sessions that formulated the Council's canons and decrees on justification and sacraments. Incredibly, however, you think you understand the Council of Trent's teaching better than the Tridentine Council Fathers themselves!

You say:

2) "In Fr. Joseph Fenton's published analysis and defense of the 1949 Holy Office Letter he, as an authoritative theologian and editor of American Ecclesiastical Review,specifically dates the teaching of 'salvation by explicit desire' from the time of St. Robert Bellarmine and the teaching of 'salvation by implicit desire' from the time of Pope Pius XII encyclicalMystici Corporis which is based upon a misquoted text from that encyclical. Yet you affirm that it is the 'universal teaching' of the Church."

I answer saying:

You do not have a theological grasp of the notion of what constitutes a "universal teaching" of the Church. You most stupidly refer to Msgr. Fenton's article; as if, sonehow, it supports your irrational argument that BOD is not a teaching of the universal magisterium. Dogma originates from the "sacred deposit" of divine revalation, and its sources are sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. Dogma develops over centuries and millennia, as it is formulated by theologians and set forth, and explicated by the ordinary magisterium; and then solemnly defined by the extraordinary magisterium, if and when the need arises. (There are some excellent theological expositions on the topic of the developnent of dogma; such as The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma, by Francisco Marin-Sola OP.)

Dogma develops from out of its principles in which it is implicitly contained; hence: a point of dogma usually begins with an open question, develops sometimes with a diversity of often conflicting opinions, and may eventually become a common or unanimous opinion before it is proposed by the ordinary magisterium; or may even be settled straightaway with a dogmatic pronouncement of the supreme magisterium.

The principles of Baptism of Desire are explicitly defined by the Council of Trent (as I have already demonstrated previously), and the specific explication of BOD is set forth in the Roman Catechism, (which has the dogmatic authority equivalent to a dogmatic encyclical because it has been promulgated by the pope to teach doctrine to the universal Church). Msgr. Fenton attests to the fact that the universal and ordinary magisterium had already taught baptism by explicit desire at the time of Bellarmine; and baptism by implicit desire in the pontificate of Pius XII. Baptism by votum is most clearly a doctrine of sacred Scripture, since St. Peter declared that the newly evangelized Gentiles who had just been taught redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ could be baptized straightaway, because they had already been sanctified by the the Holy Ghost as the apostles themselves had been: "τoτε ἀaπεκριθη Πeτρος, Μeτι τo υδωρ δυναται κωλυσαι τις τοuόµη βαπτισθηναι τουτους οιτινες το πνευµα το αγιονελαβον ως καιἡµεις;" (Acts 10:46-7)

3) Thus far, I have nowhere even commented on the doctrine of implicit votum. I have only demonstrated that the Council of Trent definitively taught justification and salvation by the laver of regeneration or votum; that the Roman Catechism teaches it explicitly; and subsequently it has been explicitly taught by the popes and Doctors; and eventually taught universally in the catechisms. However, the scripture verse I quoted in the preceeding point also provides an excellent source for the doctrine of justification by implicit votum; since, those Gentiles, upon their first hearing about redemption and salvation through Christ, received the sanctification of baptism without yet having heard of baptism. Justification by implicit votum has since been taught by St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, and St. Pius XII -- so why do you not also accuse them of heresy on this point as you do me.

The doctrine of implicit votum is explicitly taught by St. Alphonsus and by St. Pius X. It cannot possibly be a heresy, because the Church has judged their teachings to be orthodox.

4) I did not state that BOD was taught unanimously by the Fathers; but rather I explicitly acknowledged it to have still been an open question during the Patristic period. It is now a closed question since the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism teach it, and it is a universally taught doctrine of the ordinary magisterium since the epoch of Bellarmine (just a few decades after the Council of Trent), as Mons. Fenton pointed out. As a doctrine of the universal magisterium it must be believed de fide, as well as on the basis of the doctrine on justification of Session 6 of the Council of Trent, as St. Alphonsus points out.

You say:

"St. Alphonsus, as previously described, erred in his understanding on the Decree of Justification and you have followed him in this error."

I answer saying:

Pope Gregory XVI declared the writings of St. Alphonsus to be free of doctrinal error. Pope Pius IX declared him a Doctor of the Church. No less than fourteen pre-Vatican II popes have expressly recommended his works and praised his doctrinal orthodoxy. Pope Benedict XIV approved his writings while the saint was still alive, and personally praised and estermed his doctrinal teaching so greatly, that when a missionary brought a question to him (considered to have been the most erudite of the popes), Benedict XIV deferred to St. Alphonsus' judgment; telling the missionary, "You have the Fr. Liguori at Naples, consult him."

I have already theologically demonstrated previously, by way of a critical analysis of the Latin texts of the Decree on Justification (and related canons), that Chapter 4 defines that one who has been justified by the laver of regeneration OR the votum of it, to have been reborn by water and the Holy Ghost. It is plainly set forth in the unequivocal and straightforward Latin of the decree. Chapter 7 declares unequivocally and defines that one who brings that grace of justification before the judgment seat of Christ will enter eternal life. Canon 4 of Session 7 defines clearly in this same sense that the sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely because by them or the votum of them, one receives the grace of justification. The Roman Catechism, in the section on Baptism explains that the actual reception of sacramental baptism is a necessity of divine precept; and unless they be reborn by grace of baptism, they will go to eternal misery:

Sed cuм ceterarum rerum cognitio quae hactenus expositae sunt fidelibus utilissima habenda sit, tum vero nihil magis necessarium videri potest quam ut doceantur omnibus hominibus baptismi legem a Domino praescriptam esse ita ut, nisi per baptismi gratiam Deo renascantur, in sempiternam miseriam et intentum, a parentibus, sive illi fideles sive infideles sint, procreentur. Igitur saepius a pastoribus explicandum erit quod apud Evangelistam legitur: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei

The post-Tridentine popes, Doctors, and universal magisterium are in agreement with me on this point. It is you who err; and not St. Alphonsus, not St. Robert Bellarmine, not St. Pius V, not Bl. Pius IX, not St. Pius X, not Ven. Pius XII -- and not I who agree with them and not with you.

St. Alphonsus not only taught BOD, but taught the doctrine of the implicit votum. The Church has judged him free from error. St. Robert Bellarmine explained that those sanctified by the votum are not outside the Church because they are united to the "soul of the Church". St. Pius X explicitly teaches the same. I have already cited previously the verbatim texts. The Church has judged them to be orthodox in their doctrine and free from error. You rant against these doctrines of the popes and Doctors who have been judged by the Church to be orthodox, because you have judged them to be heretical and the source of Modernism.

You have plainly demonstrated your megalomania by according a higher authority to your own private judgment than to the popes, Doctors, and the infallible magisterial authority of the Church. I cannot (nor can any other sane and rational Catholic) take you seriously.

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.

I have not yet read the PDF file you sent me, nor do I intend to read it any time soon (if ever). You have shown yourself to be a heretic and megalomanic. You are obvlious to the reality that your doctrinal writings on BOD/BOB/EENS are nothing but worthless and heretical drivel; and amount to nothing but an immense load of codswallop.

The date in the title should have been June 15th for Fr. Kramer's latest explanation of the Feeneyite heresy.  Sorry for the typo.

Why are there so many threads about this? I remember from back in catechism class only those who die in a state of grace go to Heaven, and only a Catholic can die like that. This is why Jesus says to be on watch all the time and never let your guard down because He might come like a thief in the night. I know God converts some people way before they die so they can starting watching for Him in a state of grace.

Those who deny Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are fundamentalists who interpret the Council of Trent and the entire Catholic doctrinal tradition according to the principle of Private Judgment. Like the Anglicans who profess the authority of Tradition but interpret it according to their own Private Judgment, the Feeneyites reject the entire post-Tridentine doctrinal magisterium which authentically interprets Trent --  they reject all post-Tridentine Doctors, popes, catechisms, etc., on this point of doctrine; preferring their own Private Judgment.

Chapter 4 of the Decree on Justification defines that to be in the state of grace, one must undergo the process of Justification; which it defines to be the transition from the state of perdition to the state of sanctifying grace. It then declares that justification is not possible without the laver of regeneration or the firm resolve of it. The chapter then concludes by declaring that the justification thereby accomplished fulfills the evangelical requirement to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost. The Roman Catechism, as Fr. Kramer proved, teaches this identical doctrine
 That is how one gets into the state of grace.
   Chapter 7 of the Decree on Justification defines that those who have been justified will enter eternal life on the sole condition that they appear before the divine Tribunal of Christ in the justified state of sanctifying grace. The Roman Catechism teaches the identical doctrine; teaching that the requirement for entering heaven is to be in the state of grace at death.
The Feeneyite doctrine which denies that those justified by BOD who die without water baptism, can enter heaven is directly opposed to the doctrine defined at Trent. Those ultra-Feeneyites who deny that justification can take place without water baptism are likewise in direct opposition to this defined point of doctrine.

The Feeney-Wathen interpretation of Trent is a Private Judgment that directly opposes the teaching of St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism, and all the post-Tridentine popes and Doctors. Those who follow their errant heresies are following the Private Judgment principle of Protestantism against the authoritative and infallible judgment of the Church. The heresy of their position is patently manifest in their denial of Baptism of Blood; which has been unanimously professed by the whole Church since the earliest period. If Feeney & Wathen  are correct on this point, then the whole Church defected into heresy  already in the Third Century -- the gates of hell would have prevailed.

The genius who quotes the canon which declares baptism not to be superfluous or optional, but necessary for salvation has again manifested the short circuiting in his temporal lobe: It is precisely because the sacraments are necessary for salvation that one cannot be justified without them or the firm resolve to receive them. (Sess. 7, can. 4) If they were superfluous or optional; then one could gain justification without the resolve to receive baptism or absolution.

The genius who quotes the canon which declares baptism not to be superfluous or optional, but necessary for salvation has again manifested the short circuiting in his temporal lobe: It is precisely because the sacraments are necessary for salvation that one cannot be justified without them or the firm resolve to receive them. (Sess. 7, can. 4) If they were superfluous or optional; then one could gain justification without the resolve to receive baptism or absolution.

Perhaps it is your temporal lobe which has one wheel in the sand - are the sacraments necessary or are they not?

If the desire alone suffices, then the sacrament itself is not necessary. If the desire alone suffices, then the sacrament itself is superfluous. If the desire alone suffices then the sacrament itself is merely optional.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

You Cushingites who promote salvation outside the Church should go to FE - you will find all your fellow libs agree with you there.