What is this thread I have stumbled into and why does it go from 2013 to 2017 and is 48 pages? I don't want to read all of this.

Just read Croixalist's post on this topic. Here, I'll make it easy for you:


Show Posts - Croixalist (cathinfo.com)

Go to pages 62 - 65 (I think that's the complete range) of his posts. Start with page 65 (and go back towards 62). There you will read his posts in the thread, and hear reason and sound understanding on the issue.

I am a "Feeneyite" and a Third Order member of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire.  I posted on this before but the above website is, basically, "pounding on open doors":

1)  Baptism of Desire confers sanctifying grace.  We all agree on that and Father Feeney taught it.  Baptism of Desire (or, "desire of Baptism") is a grace given by the One and Triune God, and everyone agrees that it will place an individual in a state of justification before God via the merits of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ.

2)  The character of Baptism confers grace.  Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle Doctor and theologian, taught this explicitly, but it seldom gets mentioned:



Saint Thomas is teaching that a catechumen who dies with only "Baptism of Desire" in the absence of martyrdom and without sacramental Baptism would still have to suffer the temporal punishments in Purgatory for his/her sins.

So, in Catholic theology, "justification" is not an either/or thing.  There are degrees of reward in Heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in Hell, so in that sense, one can become "more and more" justified before the Triune God over time.

3)  Catholic martyrs go straight to Heaven.  This is a pitiful "straw man" that some like to "use" against we "Feeneyites."  The only question is, "Has the Sovereign God allowed such martyrs to enter into Paradise lacking the indelible seal of Baptism?"  No one at either of the two Saint Benedict Centers believes that a true martyr for Christ would go to Hell for want of sacramental Baptism, unless one wishes to apply the label "Feeneyite" to those individuals who espouse views which Father Feeney himself would have anathematized.  This brings me to my next point...

4)  Proving negatives.  While there is universal agreement among traditional Catholics on Points #1, #2 and #3, here is where folks start to diverge.  In particular, "How could you, I, or anyone else ever 'prove,' 'know,' etc., that someone, anyone, was never sacramentally baptized, if only in that person's infancy?"  In other words, to embrace Baptism of Desire as some "standalone" de fide dogma of the Catholic Faith is to try and "prove negatives," cosmic ones, in fact.  Our God is a big God, omnipotent, which means that He can bring the character of sacramental Baptism (and, hence, its graces) to anyone whom He wishes.

5)  Angels can baptize.  Saint Thomas taught this possibility explicitly but it rarely gets mentioned:

"But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are 'lying spirits,' were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid." (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)

"Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (q. 109, a. 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them." (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.111, a.1)

6)  Angels are outside of "time and space".  Per the Angelic Doctor, they can do amazing things:



So, the question if there are persons in Heaven who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism is still "fair game," an open theological question, which is why there are "Feeneyites" who, to this very day, are in full communion with Rome.

Canon Law (1917) states to the contrary. Do you disagree with it?

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

“Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)

A syllogism which comes to mind:

Trent (Major): The Sacraments are necessary for salvation
minor:  Baptism of Desire is a not a sacrament

Ergo: Baptism of Desire does not avail salvation

You adopted Brownson's name for your CI identification. You cite him often with reference to your Feeneyite position. Yet I know he would have rejected your Feeneyite view. I know that, because he said: