And I used to agree with Fr. Feeney's hypothetical, and you're right, it was only hypothetical, he did not believe it could ever happen. In that aspect I agree with him. It simply goes against Catholic reason for the infidel to die justified, but without the sacrament he cannot attain heaven. Why bother? One cannot be justified without the sacrament because Trent said that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. There's no mystery to this, it's told to us in a very clear and blunt manner.

I don't know but I believe people insist a BOD is a doctrine of the Church mainly because of the catechisms, which means they already have a preconceived idea implanted in the front of their mind, so that when they read Trent, their preconceived notion tricks them into reading meanings into Trent's teachings which the teachings simply do not say.

 

I actually believe there's some confusion among these theologians regarding the notion of justification.  Trent seems to equate it with entering the state of sanctifying grace (although that might be speaking in terms of the normal course of things and not considering "exceptions") while some of these theologians refer to it as more a natural condition, where you cease to be an enemy of God from a natural perspective and develop all the appropriate dispositions necessry to receive the Sacrament.  So, for example, even in the Old Testament, the "just" entered a state in wich they were not punished and yet could not enter Heaven.  And the mechanism by which the OT just could become justified was widely disputed by the Church Fathers (some saying it was only through circuмcision, some that it was faith in the coming Messiah, and others even extenting it to the "noble" pagans).

St. Ambrose, for instance, spoke of a condition in which unbaptized martyrs would be washed but not crowned (crowning being equated with the Kingdom of Heaven).  He also hoped, in the case of Valentinian, that he too could be "washed" (in a manner similar to these martyrs).  Pope St. Siricius explicitly stated that it was absolutely impossible even for those desiring Baptism to receive the "Kingdom".  Our Lord taught that those who had faith and were baptized would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but that those who had not faith would be punished.  He quite deliberately left in an in-between state those who had faith but were not baptized (saying neither that they would be punished nor that they would enter the Kingdom).  St. Gregory nαzιanzen, similarly, distinguished between glory and punishment, saying that not all those who are good enough to be glorified/crowned are bad enough to be punished.

There's a recurring theme here of a distinction between the free UNMERITED gift of entering the supernatural Kingdom and a natural state of not being bad enough to be punished, or being "washed" without being crowned (entering the Kingdom).  By this washing was not meant a true remission of sin per se, but, rather, a remission of the punishment due to sin.

This is why I have concluded that people like, say, unbaptized martyrs (assuming there were any ... St. Ambrose seems to take it for granted that there were some) would enter a state of Limbo, where although they could not be "crowned" (as St. Ambrose says), equivalent to entering the Kingdom, they would be washed, have the punishment due to their sins remitted.  That is why baptized martyrs go straight to Heaven bypassing Purgatory, because the punishment due to their sins (which would otherwise have put them in Purgatory) is remitted by martyrdom.  There are a few instances where the Fathers spoke of "Baptism of Blood" with regard to those already baptized in water.

So I have come firmly to believe in a sate of Limbo for those who are "justified" (in the natural sense of having the punishment due to their sins remitted) and yet who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism and the free gift of entry into the Kingdom.

Even one of the EENS definitions states that the punishments of those who are not saved vary in proportioin to their sins.  I believe that these punishments can be mitigated by offsetting natural virtue.  Mind you not the guilt of grave sin itself, nor Original Sin, but the punishment due to these sins (two different things).  I think the greatest aversion people have against EENS and why they struggle with it and need to find a way to save the unbaptized is this false notion that even naturally virtuous infidels, those perhaps who gave their lives to save others, end up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire right next to Joe Stalin and Judas.  I believe that there can be varying degrees of eternal suffering, some very mild so that people suffer no more there than they migth in this life, and even degrees of happiness.  Compare perhaps relatively noble and naturally virtuous Protestants or Orthodox who tried to keep the Commandments and prayed regularly, etc. with blaspheming Satanists or serial killers or pedophiles.  I hold that the former will end up in a state where they will continue to love God in a natural way, similar to what they did in this life, and will not be blaspheming God right next to the Satanists in hell.  But because people have this false concept that a similar fate awaits all these people who can't enter the Kingdom due to not having been baptized, that would appear to most people to decidedly contradict the Justice and the Mecy of God.  So they find creative ways (i.e. BoD) to get these people into Heaven.

If everyone is honest, they'll admit that the notion of BoD was NOT revealed.  It was (admittedly even by the Church Fathers) invented in order to reconcile the eternal punishemtnt of the natural virtuous with the eternal bliss of scoundrels.  St. Augustine spoke of the notion that some people lived wicked lives and were baptized on their death beds while others tried to lead virtuous lives and were snatched from life withou the Sacrament.  He made a profound statement regarding if you look for rewards, you will find only punishments, or something like that, which again is contrasting the notion that salvation is not a "reward", not something merited, and if you look at it that way, you will view the lack of salvation as a punishment.  But not entering the Kingdom is NOT a punishment.  Punishments are for actual transgressions.  People are not punished for Original Sin.  They merely to not receive the free gift of supernatural life.  Bear in mind that the supernatural state is not something owed to human beings.  We lack entirely a natural capacity to see God as He is in the beatific vision.  This is an elevation of our state.  That is in fact the chief argument St. Thomas made to reject the more severe Augustinian tradition that even unbaptized infants sufer in Hell.  St. Thomas said no.  Actually, the first one to argue against this position of St. Augustine was Abelard, who also, by the way, rejected Baptism of Desire.

Lad-

Too bad you weren’t around to straighten out all the poor confused theologians.

That way, you could do to them what the modernists didn’t to tge Denzinger: Chip our the last 500 years of doctrinal development, in order to recreate theology which would set them in the path to Feeneyite.

And you seem oblivious of the pride which speaks in such ways.

Inventing new positions (and “correcting” theologians to get it to “fit”) is definitely your specialty.

Johnson, you contribute absolutely nothing to this discussion.  Meanwhile, you are "correcting" all the theologians who felt there is nothing wrong with Vatican II or the New Mass, in fact you are "correcting" the V2 popes and the entire episcopal hierarchy, the teaching Church.  You regularly correct the "confusion" of the SSPX.  Simple fact is that there have been several matters in theological history which have been widely disputed and about which no theological consensus has been reached, this issue being first and foremost.  There have been others, such as the relationship between grace and free will.  Another is the notion of how the OT just were ultimately saved (as I described ... with widely varying opinions among the Church Fathers ... with a couple even holding that they were temporariily raised back to life and baptized).  Yet another is the question of what happens in the case of a heretical pope.  In fact, your assertion that there's no confusion on the issue, but that yours is the only correct opinion is the height of hubris.  So, begone, hypocrite.

SJ is like all BODers who cannot acknowledge the obvious contradictions between Trent and the catechisms/what some of the Fathers taught. I think it goes back to what I said re preconceived ideas. It's amazing how that works so well, it is actually blinding.

Wow.

1. God exists.
2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
3. The Holy Trinity.
4. The Incarnation.

He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable."

This is misleading because you fail to explain the difference between "explicit" (saying your belief out loud) vs "implicit" (not openly speaking your belief).  Even if you argue that #3 and #4 do not require explicit/verbal expression of this belief, it is "de fide" that one is absolutely required to have implicit/interior belief of these 2 doctrines.  Even St Alphonsus said so.


The heresy of the modernists is to say that belief in #1 and #2 INCLUDES the belief in #3 and #4.  But this is totally anti-catholic and anti-St Alphonsus.

The debate over the necessity of explicit/open/clear/public Faith in Catholicism can be solved from Scripture, as Christ told us that a "confession of Faith" (i.e. public/open) is necessary:

Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. (Matt 10:32-33)

And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. 9But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12: 8-9)

Those who receive the sacrament of baptism have confessed their allegiance to Christ BEFORE MEN.  Those who only have implicit faith (who have not expressed their Faith to men) have not earned salvation.  They certainly haven't denied Christ but they also haven't confessed allegiance to Him.  Thus, as Ladislaus has pointed out, St Ambrose's teaching (washed but not crowned) that these "BOD in-betweeners" would not suffer hell, but also would not gain heaven.  Thus, Limbo.