Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin (Read 1793 times)

drew · « **on:** March 16, 2024, 05:39:34 PM »

Steve Speray posts a blog on WordPress. He permits comments that are posted only after his approval. He is not interested in an open discussion, therefore it would be better if he permitted no comments at all. The practice of censoring any reply that undermines his theory is used to give a false impression of the strength of his argument. I am notifying him that I am publishing his editorial on CathInfo and offering him an opportunity to come forward and answer his critics.
Steve Speray has a common modernist problem. He has no comprehension of what dogma is.

Drew

Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent – The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin
by Steven Speray
WORD PRESS BLOGGER
Feeneyism, named after the late excommunicated priest Leonard Feeney, has rapidly grown due to the aggressiveness and deceptive tactics of today’s Feeneyites. For the past several decades, groups such as Most Holy Family Monastery and Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been arguing that the doctrine of Baptism of desire is a heresy because it contradicts Scripture and the teaching of the Council of Trent.
The doctrine of Baptism of desire is simply the doctrine that God can justify individuals apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary circuмstances. There may be no greater absurdity ever concocted by a group passing themselves off as Catholic as declaring heretical a doctrine that’s emphatically taught by the very council they claim it contradicts.
In Session VI, Chapter IV, the Council of Trent declared:
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
In Session VII, Cannon IV, the Council of Trent added an anathema when it declared:
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it. Some examples of the greatest saints and theologians can be found in the footnote. [1]
Most importantly, all the Fathers of Trent have given us proof that they understood the decrees as meaning that desire for baptism will suffice in place of the sacrament. [2] All the acts of the Council of Trent have been meticulously recorded. In them we find precisely how the Fathers of Trent understood their own docuмents and how they approached them. They all undoubtedly believed man can be saved without the sacrament in extraordinary circuмstances.
A few days after the Council adopted the decrees of the sixth session, they discussed all the possibilities on how man can be saved without the sacrament. One particular and striking example was Cardinal Cajetan’s theory that:
“Children who die in the womb of their mother can be saved, (as we have said above of those infants who die before it is possible to administer baptism to them)…They can be saved, I say, by the sacrament of baptism received not really, but ‘in voto’ [by the desire] of their parents [who would give] a blessing to the infants and invoke the Trinity.
Two reasons prompted me to come to this conclusion. First of all, it is proper that the divine mercy provide for the salvation of men in every natural condition, in such a way that in whatever state man may be found, he could not allege the impossibility of salvation. Now that impossibility would exist for an infant dying in the womb of his mother if the faith of his parents could not save him.
In [the womb] the infant is capable of receiving baptism of blood; if a child yet enclosed in the womb of his mother could receive death for Christ, he would be a martyr as the holy innocents. It is then reasonable to admit that the faith of his parents could produce the same result as suffering born of infants.
Thus then one could be acting prudently and wisely in the case where children come to die in the womb of their mothers, whether because of the mother’s sickness or a difficulty in birth, in giving the children a blessing with the invocation of the Sovereign Judge. Who can say the divine mercy would not accept that baptism received by the desire of the parents. This embraces no contempt of the sacrament, since it is the impossibility of the sacrament which forces parents to have recourse to it.”
For thirteen days the Fathers of Trent cast their ballots for or against the proposition: “Children in the wombs of their mothers can be saved by blessing and invocation of the Trinity.”
Over 50 votes were cast. Twenty-six asked for a condemnation. Six asked for a condemnation but with reservations that were not exactly what Cajetan proposed. Three bishops suggested that condemnation should be placed on the certainty of the proposition. The remaining twenty-one bishops said nothing or defended Cajetan’s proposition.
After the vote, it was sent back to the theologians for revisions, which left out Cajetan’s theory. The council was too divided over the issue but it never condemned Cajetan or his proposition. Pope St. Pius V did not eliminate the proposition as often asserted. However, the pope did eliminate Cajetan’s commentary on St. Thomas. There’s no solid historical evidence that St. Pius V had any influence on the decision.
What’s interesting about the whole affair is that it demonstrates that all of the Fathers of Trent understood that desire of those of the age of reason would suffice, but not necessarily the desire of parents for their unbaptized infants. However, Cajetan’s opinion is permitted to be held by the Church.
This brings us to the Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442 which declared:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”
We know now based on the teaching of the Fathers of Trent that we are not bound by a strict interpretation of the Council of Florence’s teaching on this point. Florence was only advancing a general principle much like Our Lord does in John 3:5. There is no other remedy for infants than baptism generally, but that doesn’t leave out possible exceptions. Florence wasn’t dealing with exceptions.
Another fascinating point about the incident was how Cajetan speaks as a matter of fact that all the Fathers understood that infants in utero can receive baptism of blood if the mother is martyred. Baptism of blood is also denied by Feeneyites, even though all the Fathers of Trent believed it and the whole Church has recognized saints through Baptism of blood. [3]
We see clearly and understand how Trent is and was understood by the Church. However, the Feeneyites have to interpret Trent exactly contrary to the meaning that all the Fathers of Trent intended. According to Feeneyites, it’s heresy to believe in Baptism of desire.
Feeneyites claim that the definition of Trent was making the distinction on all that is necessary for the unbaptized. They say if Trent taught ‘and’ a desire for it, it would have invalidated all infant baptisms. Had Trent merely stated “laver of regeneration” [baptism] without mentioning a desire for, it would have been inadequate since desire is necessary for adults. It is simply telling us what cannot be missing in infants, and what cannot be missing in adults for justification.
Feeneyites further argue that Canon 4 should be interpreted in light of Canon 2 which states, “if anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: Let him be anathema” and Canon 5 which states: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”
When people are bent on believing something despite the obvious facts, they will evidently make fools of themselves with their explanations as Feeneyites do with Trent.
Desire for baptism is presumed with adults. It’s not the only thing needed for adults getting baptized. Faith is what is most needed. If Trent specified what must not be missing for adults, “faith” would be the optimal word, not “desire.” Baptism of desire is not accomplished by mere desire but great faith also.
Baptism of desire does not distort Canon 2 into some kind of metaphor. This Canon was simply condemning the Protestant heresies at that time. Some Protestants say the water, which Christ referred to, was a metaphorical expression being washed in the word of God and not actual water. Baptism is a work needed for salvation and Protestants reject works as necessary for salvation. This is what Trent was condemning in Canon 2.
As for Canon 5, Baptism of Water is not optional. One cannot opt out of it and be saved. Baptism of desire is for those who don’t have an option.
Feeneyites prefer their own erroneous interpretation of Trent over the interpretation of all the Fathers of Trent and all the theologians since. The very Fathers that taught the dogma on the absolute necessity of baptism that Feeneyites turn to, prove their case, would be heretics for not believing in the very thing they were defining. It just doesn’t get anymore ridiculous.
Of course, they won’t apply their own logic – by calling the popes, saints, and fathers heretics as they do with the average Catholic who follows their teaching on Baptism of desire. The Feeneyite goes from one absurdity to another. His reaction to articles such as this one is not to be humbled, but rather to get enraged, have a debate challenge, and condemning as cowardly if failure to engage.
They have proven to be like devils with their irrational thinking and debating them would be like arguing with devils deserving no recognition and only to be shunned. They have made themselves the final arbiters of truth as all antichrists do. They have a sickness of soul that can’t be fixed with facts, logic, and common sense, but only with prayer, fasting, and perhaps an exorcism or two.

Footnotes:
[1] St. Charles Borreomeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text of the Roman Catechism, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.“, c. vii).
The Roman Catechism taught that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen 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.” (p 179) http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
In 1582, 27 years after Canisius’ catechism was written, the English College of Rheims published the Rheims New Testament. It was the official English translation approved by Rome. In the commentary of John 3:5, the Rheims Bible reads, “…this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit…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 by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.”
1582 Douai Rheims Douay Rheims First Edition 3 Of 3 1582 New Testament : Douay (Douai) Rheims College – scanned by www.fatimamovement.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places. Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Opus De Triplici Virtu, Te Theologica, Fide, Spe, Et Charitate. cuм superiorum permissu & Privilegio Caesareo. Sumptibus Hermanni Mylij Birckmanni, Excudebat Balthasar Lippius, 1922.
St. Robert Bellarmine who taught in his De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D.
First proposition: Martyrdom is rightly called, and is a kind of Baptism.
Second proposition: Perfect Conversion, and Penance is rightly called Baptism of wind, and it supplies for Baptism of water at least in cases of necessity. Note that not just any conversion is called Baptism of wind, but perfect conversion, which includes true contrition, and charity, and also desire, or will to receive Baptism.
Secondly, note that this proposition was not as certain with the ancients, as was the above. For as regards Martyrdom none of the ancients, as far as I know, denied that it could supply for Baptism of water: but as regards conversion and penance there were some who denied it. Indeed the book written on the dogmas of the Church, which is falsely attributed to Augustine, chap. 74. openly teaches that a Catechumen is not saved, although he should have lived in good works, unless he be purified by the baptism of water or of blood. Also it is clear from epistle 77 of St. Bernard, that some in his time believed the same.
But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire. Finally, true conversion is associated with Martyrdom, and with Baptism of water, in the name of Baptism and in two effects; therefore it is credible that it also be associated in another effect, which is to forgive guilt, and to justify man, and in this way to supply for Baptism of water.
Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J. (1567- 1637) a Flemish Jesuit and renowned exegete wrote in his great biblical commentary on John 3:5 around 1615: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).
Some are of opinion that the sacrament of baptism was at this time instituted by Christ. But it is not probable that Christ secretly, in the presence of only Nicodemus, instituted the universal sacrament of baptism. Rather, He publicly instituted it at His own baptism in the river Jordan. Baptism, however, although it had been publicly instituted by Christ, was not binding upon the Jєωs and other men until after Christ’s death, at Pentecost. For then the promulgation of the Evangelical Law took place, whose beginning is baptism. Of this time Christ here speaks. As though He said, “The time for the obligation of the Law of the Gospel is close at hand. When that shall have come, the ancient Law, and circuмcision, will cease, and in its place the new Law will succeed, and baptism, in which none save those who are born again of water and of the Holy Ghost will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.” Wherefore this precept of Christ has rather reference to the time after Pentecost, than the present.
Moreover, the expression, unless any one shall have been born again, intimates that baptism had been already a short time previously instituted by Christ. For Christ spake these words to Nicodemus shortly after His own baptism. And He would not have told him that baptism was necessary for salvation, unless He had already instituted it.
St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.
Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori
Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.
Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….
Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.
[2] Concilium Tridentinum: Actorum pars altera: Acta post sessionem tertiam usq… – Google Books
[3] The Breviary states:
“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”
This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands.
The liturgy has some more instances:
In the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of St. Respicius.
“During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”
St. Victor of Braga of Portugal is a saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11. During the reign of Diocletian, he refused to adore an idol and with great courage confessed his belief in Jesus Christ. He was severely tortured and then decapitated being baptized in his own blood.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2024, 05:53:30 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 16, 2024, 05:39:34 PM

.
Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it. Some examples of the greatest saints and theologians can be found in the footnote. [1]

I am not going to read this wall of text I'm sure lad or someone else might be willing. But just wanted to point out this is wrong and an assumption.

If what he said were true we would have seen St. Peter Canisius mention it, a person who was at Trent...

drew · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2024, 05:54:25 PM »

There are numerous problems with this article. Numerous. I will address only one.

The Speray says:

Quote

"In Session VII, Cannon IV, the Council of Trent added an anathema when it declared:
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it. Some examples of the greatest saints and theologians can be found in the footnote.

Grammar Lesson:
The coordinating conjunction “or” can grammatically be used in an exclusive or inclusive sense. It is more often exclusive, but either way, the sense is always reciprocal. For example, if you were to win a new car and the dealer says you can have it in red or white, if you take the white, you cannot have the red. Reciprocally, if you take the red, you cannot have the white. This is taking the conjunction exclusively.

In the dogma cited, the assumption is that the conjunction “or” is exclusive in that you can have the desire without the sacrament and be justified. Therefore, if this were correct, the reciprocal would have to occur, that is, the sacrament without the desire would then end in justification. We know that this cannot happen. If for example, a Jєω while staying a Jєω, is baptized because he wants to escape persecution and has no desire to receive the sacrament, then the sacrament itself without the desire will not end in justification because he has rejected the faith. Therefore, the conjunction “or” in this dogma must necessarily be inclusive and cannot be exclusive because, only in the inclusive sense is the relationship reciprocal. That means there must be both the sacrament present and the desire for the sacrament present to end in justification.

The dogma condemns three propositions: If you say that the baptism is not necessary for salvation, anathema sit; If you say that baptism is not necessary for justification, OR if you say that the desire for baptism is not necessary for justification, anathema sit.

There is no grammatical possibility where the coordinating conjunction “or” can be exclusive one way and inclusive reciprocally.

In infant baptism the "desire" is expressed explicitly by the Godparents at the very beginning of the traditional rite when they are asked what they seek from the Church. The answer is "faith".

Baptism of Desire apologists argue that desire alone produces justification and justification alone produces salvation. Therefore, baptism IS NOT really necessary for salvation as a revealed truth of Catholic dogma but only as a prescriptive norm. They then argue that legal norms do not bind in cases of excessive difficulty therefore the desire need not be explicit and, voila, we have baptism of implicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes (from the 1949 Holy Office Letter censoring Fr. Feeney) which god can be known by natural reason alone. This ultimately leads to the real purpose of this argument and that is the belief that no dogma whatsoever has to be taken too literally and now you know what has become the theological justification for the Prayer Meeting of Assisi.

Drew

drew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2024, 06:07:46 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 16, 2024, 05:54:25 PM

There are numerous problems with this article. Numerous. I will address only one.

The Speray says:

Grammar Lesson:
The coordinating conjunction “or” can grammatically be used in an exclusive or inclusive sense. It is more often exclusive, but either way, the sense is always reciprocal. For example, if you were to win a new car and the dealer says you can have it in red or white, if you take the white, you cannot have the red. Reciprocally, if you take the red, you cannot have the white. This is taking the conjunction exclusively.

In the dogma cited, the assumption is that the conjunction “or” is exclusive in that you can have the desire without the sacrament and be justified. Therefore, if this were correct, the reciprocal would have to occur, that is, the sacrament without the desire would then end in justification. We know that this cannot happen. If for example, a Jєω while staying a Jєω, is baptized because he wants to escape persecution and has no desire to receive the sacrament, then the sacrament itself without the desire will not end in justification because he has rejected the faith. Therefore, the conjunction “or” in this dogma must necessarily be inclusive and cannot be exclusive because, only in the inclusive sense is the relationship reciprocal. That means there must be both the sacrament present and the desire for the sacrament present to end in justification.

The dogma condemns three propositions: If you say that the baptism is not necessary for salvation, anathema sit; If you say that baptism is not necessary for justification, OR if you say that the desire for baptism is not necessary for justification, anathema sit.

There is no grammatical possibility where the coordinating conjunction “or” can be exclusive one way and inclusive reciprocally.

In infant baptism the "desire" is expressed explicitly by the Godparents at the very beginning of the traditional rite when they are asked what they seek from the Church. The answer is "faith".

Baptism of Desire apologists argue that desire alone produces justification and justification alone produces salvation. Therefore, baptism IS NOT really necessary for salvation as a revealed truth of Catholic dogma but only as a prescriptive norm. They then argue that legal norms do not bind in cases of excessive difficulty therefore the desire need not be explicit and, voila, we have baptism of implicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes (from the 1949 Holy Office Letter censoring Fr. Feeney) which god can be known by natural reason alone. This ultimately leads to the real purpose of this argument and that is the belief that no dogma whatsoever has to be taken too literally and now you know what has become the theological justification for the Prayer Meeting of Assisi.

Drew

Speray REPLIES:

Quote

Drew:There is several egregious errors that can be attributed to saints and doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas’ error regarding the Immaculate Conception to St. Robert Bellarmine’s belief that any pagan who pretended to be a Catholic and was accepted as so by a community would thereby be a member of the Church.

Speray: Totally irrelevant since none of the errors of saints were errors against the faith during their time. None of them interpreted a dogma exactly opposite as to its meaning as you must hold St. Alphonsus did with Trent. This includes all the popes since Trent who supported the Roman Catechism that taught differently than you. Of course, there’s Baptism of Blood understood by literally every Catholic in history.

Quote

Drew: Dogma is divine revelation formally and infallibly defined by the Magisterium. God is the formal and final cause of dogma and therefore dogma is irreformable in both its form and matter. Dogma is the end of theological speculation. What is required to properly understand dogma is definition and grammar.

Speray: Which you have failed to understand. The definition and grammar are to be understood in the way the Church understands it. You claim that a doctor of the Church did not understand the definition and grammar of the dogma. This includes St. Charles Borromeo who was assigned to explain the Faith in the Roman Catechism after Trent for priests.

Quote

Drew: You apparently have insufficient competency in both.

Speray: You have made it clear that it is you who is incompetent!

Quote

Drew: Those who appeal to “real church authorities” do not know what dogma is.

Speray: You appeal to yourself against all of the popes and saints. Yes, I appeal to real Church authorities.

Quote

Drew: It is the dogma itself that is infallible. You and others like you like to quote non-infallible “real church authorities” to interpret the infallible dogma have completely inverted the very notion of infallibility.

Speray: WRONG! You do what Protestants do with Scripture. You take your private interpretation against the Church itself. You’re also claiming the Fathers of Trent did not understand the definition and grammar of the dogma they defined.

Quote

Drew: I have demonstrated that you and those you follow have made a fundamental error in grammar.

Speray: Wrong again. I have demonstrated that you and those like you do not know what you’re talking about. Again, if we follow your interpretation, then faith would not be needed, but only baptism or baptism and desire for it. You fail to understand the passage completely. In fact, no one has understood Trent the way you do until the 20th century.

Quote

Drew: Furthermore, the grammatical error is the same in the original Latin text. If you want to reply demonstrate the error in the grammar. Or do you believe that a Jєω who has himself baptized without any desire for the sacrament or profession of Catholic faith is thereby justified, that is, is thereby placed in a state of sanctifying grace by the sacrament alone?

Speray: Actually, you just proved my point. Faith is not indicated in the definition. You must presume based on your strict unreasonable interpretation that faith is not needed at all. Also, your interpretation must hold that a Jєω without the faith but desires baptism for the sole purpose of saving his place in the world would be justified. This proves that you are the one who can’t grasp the grammar. Now, it’s time for you to suck it up and admit that you’re wrong and accept Catholicism. As of now, you are not a Catholic for holding a heresy that contradicts the real definition and grammar of the dogma defined at Trent!

Speray

drew · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2024, 06:13:05 PM »

Speray:

You have begged the question - again. I have demonstrated that the correct grammatical interpretation for the dogma in question requires that the coordinating conjunction “OR” be taken inclusively. That is, both the sacrament of baptism and the desire for the sacrament are required for justification. You call this a “strict unreasonable interpretation.” Your reply is that grammar and definition mean whatever the theologians say it means.

A gentleman from Poland contacted me a few weeks ago regarding a debate that was started by the late Fr. Anthony J. Cekada on the Ignis Ardens on a liturgical question a little over ten years ago. Fr. Cekada ended the debate by saying that baptism of desire proves that Dogma does not have to be taken literally. Like you, Fr. Cekada did not believe that dogma must be understood by the grammar and definition of the terms. Fr. Cekada believed that all dogma must be contextualized and required theological expertise to discern the true and sometimes hidden meaning. I would like you to affirm your agreement with Fr. Cekada.

Once you do that we can begin to enter a discussion that will be profitable.

Drew

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2024, 09:35:16 PM »

Speray’s inability to present rational arguments, along with his obsession about this subject, is a clear sign of someone with an agenda … and, as such, he should be dismissed out of hand.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2024, 09:53:27 PM »

Quote from: drew on March 16, 2024, 06:07:46 PM

Speray: … Also, your interpretation must hold that a Jєω without the faith but desires baptism for the sole purpose of saving his place in the world would be justified.

This has to be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever seen written about this subject in my decades of arguing about it. Speray hereby disqualifies himself from the debate.

drew · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2024, 03:26:34 PM »

Drew said to Speray:

Quote

I have posted your commentary and my replies on a new CathInfo thread. I invite you to take this opportunity to defend your propositions in an open forum.
Drew
Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent – The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

Speray replied:

Quote

Not wasting my time with you over there. You want leave and go elsewhere, so be it.

Steven Speray runs his own version of Catholicism on his blog at WordPress. I would guess from a short scanning he is a determined sedevacantist in the mold of the late Fr. Anthony Cekada. He pontificates on his blog to only those of like mind. He invites comments which are censored for the purpose of insuring he is the only authoritative and final voice. When offered to enter a public discussion on the open forum of CathInfo where he would be tasked to defend his accusations he replies, "Not wasting my time with you over there." He might have added that he was quite comfortable speculating in his little world bounded by his unfounded presuppositions that are better left undisturbed. Too much light is not appreciated.

A Catholic is free to suffer unjust persecution but he is not free to tolerate unjust persecution of others. I have been a traditional Catholic, I would guess from Speray's photo, well before he was born. I first heard of Fr. Feeney in 1972 when I asked a priest at the cathedral church why to pulpit was never used. He told me that it conveyed too much a sense of hell and damnation. I replied that that was also part of the Catholic doctrine. He said, 'Be careful, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that'. And so began an investigation on just who Fr. Feeney was. Now it is 52 years later and, with the internet available, I am still hearing the same stupid vicious calumny.

Now faithful Catholics might appreciate this. Fr. Feeney suffers a like unjust persecution long after he died like Jesus Christ and all those who defend truth. You never hear vicious insults against the likes of excommunicated Modernist heretic Rev. George Tyrrell. He is dead, generally forgotten, and gone to his just reward although the heresy he devoted his life to is still contaminating the air we breathe, although under the altered methodology of Neo-modernism. It is Fr. Feeney they hate because it is Fr. Feeney who was the first who stood against the Neo-Modernist methodology of professing belief in dogma that has been gutted of meaning. The 1949 Holy Office Letter to Archbishop Cushing censoring Fr. Feeney is a declaration that no dogma must necessarily be taken literally. And thus ends with the likes of Fr. Cekada who said to me ten years ago, 'Baptism of Desire proves that dogma does not have to be taken literally'.

Like the dopey priest at the cathedral, Speray calls Fr. Feeney a heretic. Since Speray is absolutely ignorant regarding the nature of dogma, he cannot possibly know what the legal definition of heresy means. Ignorance is one thing that is inexcusable at this time. We are left with willful stupidity, malice, and arrogance which are evident in his criticism of Fr. Feeney and those who admire his courage and defense of the Catholic faith.

Speray arrogates to himself the judgment that defenders of Fr. Feeney display "aggressiveness and deceptive tactics" because they say, "Baptism of desire is a heresy because it contradicts Scripture and the teaching of the Council of Trent." If Fr. Feeney called anything a "heresy" it is because it met the legal definition of heresy which is the denial of dogma. But Speray does not know what dogma is, so he cannot possible know what heresy is, and yet he does not blush to say, "There may be no greater absurdity ever concocted by a group passing themselves off as Catholic as declaring heretical a doctrine that’s emphatically taught by the very council they claim it contradicts."

"Emphatically taught"? When challenged with the actual dogmatic declarations of the Council of Trent Fr. Feeney is accused by Speray of being a heretic because he takes a "strict unreasonable interpretation" of dogma, that is, Fr. Feeney took dogma literally. So the literal meaning dogma is heresy and characterizes literal minded Catholics of doing to dogma what "Protestants do with Scripture", that is, private interpretation. So dogma, which is the Magisterium of the Church, by virtue of engaging the Church's attributes of infallibility and authority, formally defines a doctrine of Catholic faith, it CANNOT be believed literally without committing "private interpretation" and being a "Protestant"? This is nothing but a Neo-Modernist technique of destroying all dogma. It is in fact an absurd overthrow of the First Principles of the Understanding of identity, sufficient cause, sufficient reason.

In this brief post, Speray employs every Neo-Modernist technique to undermine the literal meaning of dogma. He corrupts definition, qualifies categorical propositions, denies that the infallibility is in the nature of the dogma itself but rather in its non-literal theological exposition, inverts authority, and attributes dogma as its formal and final cause to the fathers of Trent and not to God to Whom alone belongs necessarily the attributes of Infallibility and Authority.

Fr. Cekada's claim that 'Baptism of desire proves that dogma does not have to be taken literally' is the real and only purpose of this argument. Baptism of Desire defenders ultimately reject the literal meaning of every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation. They are in the end responsible for the new ecclesiology, ecuмenism, religious liberty and the general destruction of the Church since Vatican II. They laid the theological foundation for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi and then pretend to be scandalized when it took place. When the literal meaning of dogma is rejected there is no possible defense of the Faith.

Speray will not come forward and defend the indefensible. He is an unjust, uncharitable, corrupter of Catholic truth and a calumniator of faithful Catholic priest.

Drew

JoeZ · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2024, 08:57:12 PM »

If I may,

It is seldom that you will find a Cushingite who will actually define BOD, but Speray does: "The doctrine of Baptism of desire is simply the doctrine that God can justify individuals apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary circuмstances."

I must say, this definition is to the root of it. His position is that the Sacraments are not necessary for justification, which is of course that first prerequisite step to salvation itself. Or the word apart does not mean separate, away from, distinct.

You are not wrong to claim he is proposing a new ecclesiology, for this is at odds with even St Robert Bellarmine (a favorite of the BOD crowd) when he declares that membership in the Catholic Church requires participation in the Sacramental system. But this isn't even just a new ecclesiology, it's worse, it is bald faced indifferentism. One "church" is as good as the other. Christ's merit is just out there, for all to use with no thought, act, gratitude, worship, or any distinction from the mundane at all, like a shower room. His definition is blasphemy.

Not to mention that this definition is the opposite of the defined dogma that baptism is necessary for salvation. Of course he must attack the very nature of dogma as it strictly prohibits his premise. Drew, you pointed out on one of these boards some time ago that this is the modernist laying the axe not to the branches but to the very root of dogma as pope Saint Pius X warned.

And if a dogma cannot be understood properly as it is written, as it is defined, then who has the authority to tell me or my "theologians" that we are wrong, and maybe the "truth" I came to is the one God wanted me to arrive at and he sins who changes my mind. Protestant much? Or is it hidden from my "unenlightened" mind and only Speray and "theologians" of his liking are privy to the real understanding. Gnostic much? Pitfalls abound, or as St Augustine would say "a vortex of confusion".

I only read one paragraph into his work and I already was compelled to object.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2024, 06:46:14 AM »

Quote from: JoeZ on March 17, 2024, 08:57:12 PM

If I may,

It is seldom that you will find a Cushingite who will actually define BOD, but Speray does: "The doctrine of Baptism of desire is simply the doctrine that God can justify individuals apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary circuмstances."

I must say, this definition is to the root of it. His position is that the Sacraments are not necessary for justification, which is of course that first prerequisite step to salvation itself. Or the word apart does not mean separate, away from, distinct.

Yes, I've pointed this out before, that, given how there's a different definition of BoD for pretty much every BoDer you'll find, BoD reduces (in all its common elements, i.e. as the greatest common factor, to use a mathematical analogy) to the proposition that "the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation", which is heretical. No, Speray, to hold that justification can happen "without" or "apart" from the Sacrament of Baptism is heresy. You could argue that in a BoD scenario, the Sacrament can be efficiacious, operating as the instrumental cause of justification, through the votum, but you can't even figure that out. That's why St. Robert Bellarmine was careful to state that individuals justified by BoD receive the Sacrament in voto (vs. in actu), but would never dare claim (heretically) that justification can happen WITHOUT or APART FROM the Sacrament, as Speray heretically claims. In any alleged BoD scenario, the Sacrament of Baptism must continue to be operative, i.e. must continue to act as the instrumental cause of justification, as Trent clearly taught, in order for you to avoid heresy on the matter, and avoid also the heresy of a Pelagian ex opere operantis justification.

Not only this, but his definition exposes yet again what an idiot Speray is, since Father Feeney did believe that God does justify (it's not a question of "can" because God "can" do anything) apart from actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism (yet another very sloppily articulated part of the definition). Father Feeney believed in justification without actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, i.e. via votum, so Speray is fighting strawmen and windmills. Father Feeney merely believed that such individuals can be justified (as per his reading of Trent) but not saved. So THAT is the position that Speray needs to prove is heretical before spouting off on how Father Feeney is a heretic. This moron doesn't even know the propositions he's supposed to be addressing. It was actually a pro-BoD individual here on CI who pointed me to the fact (as also written up by "Cardinal" Avery Dulles) that some post-Tridentine theologians actually held to a distinction between justification and salvation. Melchior Cano, for instance, held that infidels could be justified but not saved. If Father Feeney was a heretic, then so was Melchior Cano (and yet the Church has never declared him such).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2024, 06:55:54 AM »

Quote from: drew on March 16, 2024, 05:39:34 PM

Steve Speray posts a blog on WordPress.
...
Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it.

So did Father Feeney, Speray, you blithering moron. After this sentence early on, your entire blog post can be ignored since you haven't the slightest clue about what "heresy" it is that you think you're attacking.

This guy doesn't even know what the "Feeneyism" he's condemning as heretical actually is and what propositions it adheres to. He's battling the "Dimondite" opinion, namely, an alternative reading of the Council of Trent and falsely labeling it "Feeneyism".

Now, with that said, you have the notable example of St. Peter Canisius, who was a Father at Trent, not some later interpreter, who read this passage in the Dimondite manner. Secondly, the sum total of "literally every single theologian" amounts to about two dozen that Father Cekada could find (in 500 years), the majority of whom simply mention BoD in passing and never study the actual passage in Trent, say "yep, BoD" without clearly having given a significant amount of consideration to the question and simply repeating (manual-style) the notion that there's BoD. That hardly constitutes some kind of dogmatic consensus. "Literally every single theologian ..." for about 700 years also adhered to St. Augustine's position regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, until Abelard and then St. Thomas overturned the theological consensus on the matter and nearly all theologians have now abandoned the Augustinian "severity" on the question. So this is the error of Cekadism, claiming that the consensus of theologians at any given time constitues some kind of "rule of faith", a theory explicitly rejected as "absurd" by an actual theologian (unlike Cekada), Msgr. Fenton.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2024, 07:09:21 AM »

Quote from: drew on March 17, 2024, 03:26:34 PM

Baptism of Desire defenders ultimately reject the literal meaning of every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.

Drew,

Good morning. You mention the "literal meaning." Can you post the literal (verbatim) dogmatic statements of the infallible Magisterium (which you implicitly invoke) which speak of the necessity of baptism as a necessity of means for salvation?

Thanks,

DR

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2024, 07:14:05 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on March 16, 2024, 05:53:30 PM

I am not going to read this wall of text I'm sure lad or someone else might be willing. But just wanted to point out this is wrong and an assumption.

If what he said were true we would have seen St. Peter Canisius mention it, a person who was at Trent...

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 18, 2024, 06:55:54 AM

So did Father Feeney, Speray, you blithering moron. After this sentence early on, your entire blog post can be ignored since you haven't the slightest clue about what "heresy" it is that you think you're attacking.

This guy doesn't even know what the "Feeneyism" he's condemning as heretical actually is and what propositions it adheres to. He's battling the "Dimondite" opinion, namely, an alternative reading of the Council of Trent and falsely labeling it "Feeneyism".

Now, with that said, you have the notable example of St. Peter Canisius, who was a Father at Trent, not some later interpreter, who read this passage in the Dimondite manner. Secondly, the sum total of "literally every single theologian" amounts to about two dozen that Father Cekada could find (in 500 years), the majority of whom simply mention BoD in passing and never study the actual passage in Trent, say "yep, BoD" without clearly having given a significant amount of consideration to the question and simply repeating (manual-style) the notion that there's BoD. That hardly constitutes some kind of dogmatic consensus. "Literally every single theologian ..." for about 700 years also adhered to St. Augustine's position regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, until Abelard and then St. Thomas overturned the theological consensus on the matter and nearly all theologians have now abandoned the Augustinian "severity" on the question. So this is the error of Cekadism, claiming that the consensus of theologians at any given time constitues some kind of "rule of faith", a theory explicitly rejected as "absurd" by an actual theologian (unlike Cekada), Msgr. Fenton.

I just realised I misread this as baptism not justification...

the BoD reading is getting to me.

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin (Read 1793 times)

drew

Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

AnthonyPadua

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

drew

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

drew

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

drew

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

drew

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

JoeZ

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

DecemRationis

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin

AnthonyPadua

Re: Baptism of Desire and the Fathers of Trent - The Nail in the Feeneyite Coffin