Author Topic: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD (Read 7861 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** February 18, 2025, 10:04:46 PM »

So, reading the dogmatic definition of EENS from the Council of Florence, in the bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV, a realization struck me that there's a definitive nail in the coffin against so-called "Baptism of Desire" right in that dogmatic definition, at least a BoD meaning that souls can be ultimately SAVED without actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Father Feeney maintained that justification can happen via a Baptism of Desire but not salvation.

Now, even the proponents of BoD must admit that in a BoD scenario, it's still the SACRAMENT of Baptism that supplies the grace, even if it is via the votum for it. Trent taught right after the infamous "or the desire thereof" passage that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental causes of justification. Otherwise you're a Pelagian heretic who believes that salvation can be achieved ex opere operantis, and also a heretic for claiming that salvation can be achieved without the Sacraments.

Now, with that in mind, let's have a look at Florence (in the Latin):

Quote

[Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia] ... credit, profitetur et predicat ... tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficient ....

I provide the entire context here, so people can check it, but want to focus on the section above.
https://www.vatican.va/content/eugenius-iv/la/docuмents/bulla-cantate-domino-4-febr-1442.html

Quote

Firmiter credit, profitetur et predicat nullos extra ecclesiam catholicam existentes, non solum paganos, sed nec iudeos aut hereticos atque scismaticos eterne vite fieri posse participes, sed in ignem eternum ituros, qui paratus est dyabolo et angelis eius (Mt 25, 41), nisi ante finem vite eidem fuerint aggregati, tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant et ieiunia, elemosine ac cetera pietatis officia et exercitia militie christiane premia eterna parturiant, neminem que quantascunque elemosinas fecerit, et si pro Christi nomine sanguinem effuderit, posse salvari, nisi in catholice ecclesie gremio et unitate permanserit.

So, the subject of the verbs at the beginning is the Sacrosanct Roman Church from many paragraphs earlier, with paragraph after paragraph of what the Church "believes, professes, and preaches".

Now let's translate this section ...

Quote

[Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia] ... credit, profitetur et predicat ... tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficient ....

So the Sacrosanct Roman Church "believes, professes, and preaches ... that so much weight (strength / power) does the unity of the ecclesiastical body have that the Sacraments of the Church can profit to salvation for those only who remain in it [the unity of the body].

In other words, the Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Baptism) cannot even PROFIT TO SALVATION to those who remain outside the unity of the body, meaning that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot lead to the salvation of any who are not in the unity of the ecclesiastical BODY. This passage alone renders heretical the entire "Soul of the Church" theory, where people can be saved by being in the soul of the Church but not in the body of the Church. Yet BoD can only exist if the Sacrament of Baptism can profit the souls receiving it via the votum to salvation.

This is 100% game over for BoD theory, since those who are outside the UNITY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL BODY cannot even be PROFITTED by the Sacrament of Baptism to salvation, and that's the very definition of BoD, where the Sacrament of Baptism somehow profits them to salvation despite the fact that they haven't actually received it. But it's being dogmatically taught here that only those who remain in the unity of the Body of the Church can profit unto salvation from the Sacrament of Baptism.

Now, the one retort by the BoD-promoters would be that the term "remains" refers to people who had once been members of the Church but then actively severed their membership. This is incorrect, as the term is a reference to final perseverance in the unity of the Church, period, and not simply for remaining in the unity of the Church's Body IF you ever achieved it in the first place, i.e. it echoes the earlier phrase that in order to be saved one must have been joined to this unity of the Church before the end of their life ... "nisi ante finem vite fuerit aggregati", unless they will have been joined (aggregated to) the Church before the end of life. So those two passages go together, "unless they will have been joined to the Church before the end of their life and remained in the unity of the Church's body [until death]".

SimpleMan · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2025, 10:08:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 18, 2025, 10:04:46 PM

Father Feeney maintained that justification can happen via a Baptism of Desire but not salvation.

Really dumb question here, how can one be justified without being saved?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2025, 10:17:04 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on February 18, 2025, 10:08:30 PM

Really dumb question here, how can one be justified without being saved?

You can be in a state of justification until your entire life but unless you receive the grace of final perseverance, it doesn't become salvation.

Justification refers to being in friendship with God, rather than enmity with Him, and one can be in that state without yet having the requirements to enter the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven. Quite a few Church Fathers make this distinction.

Melchior Cano, approved and highly respected post-Tridentine Dominican theologian, held for instance that infidels could be justified but not saved. Father Feeney did not invent or make up that distinction.

But that's a side point anyway, whether one accepts justification vs. salvation. So, for instance, the Dimond Brothers do not.

Bottom line is that Florence explicitly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot profit unto salvation for those who are not aggregated (joined to the flock, literal Latin of that term) and remain in the unity of the ecclesiastical body. That is the very definition of the BoD theory that somehow the Sacrament can profit unto salvation those who have not been joined to the unity of the ecclesiastical body (which only happens with the actual reception of Baptism ... as per Trent's teaching and as even BoDers must admit).

There's just no getting around this without denying the dogmatic definition of Florence. This dogmatically scuttles the "soul of the Church" explanation for BoD. Even BoDers must admit that those allegedly saved by BoD are in the Church (somehow) but do not become members of the Church, i.e. are not joined to the unity of the Church's body ... since that can only happen via ACTUAL reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. But this teaching here unequivocally states that the Sacrament cannot PROFIT UNTO SALVATION those who are not joined to the unity of the Church's Body, which, as mentioned, is the very definition of BoD theory where somehow the Sacrament profits them unto salvation DESPITE not having been in the unity of the Church's Body. Then, if you try to claim that something OTHER than the Sacraments profit unto salvation, you're in heresy for denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (as taught by Trent), and you're also a Pelagian. So you're stuck between the rock of heresy and the hard place of heresy ... with no escape.

BoD ...

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2025, 12:02:17 AM »

How long until the Dimonds make a video on this I love to see it. Unfortunately despite the clear teaching of the Church most trads are just going to call you a 'feenyite' and deny the Truth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2025, 06:30:11 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 19, 2025, 12:02:17 AM

How long until the Dimonds make a video on this I love to see it. Unfortunately despite the clear teaching of the Church most trads are just going to call you a 'feenyite' and deny the Truth.

I did send them a link to these thoughts, but you're right that for the diehard BoDers, secret anti-EENSers, we won't be able to pull BoD from their cold dead brains (to paraphrase Heston on guns).

Right there within this dogmatic definition it says that the Sacraments cannot profit or benefit unto salvation any other than those who are joined in the unity of the Church's body, i.e. members of the Church, and we do not become joined to the Church's body until the ACTUAL reception of the Sacrament. I'm sure the Dimond Brothers can ferret out all those quotes, including from Trent. Even BoDers must admit that those with BoD do not become members of the Church's body, and so the Sacrament cannot avail them unto salvation even through the votum to receive it.

So the only alternative is even more heretical, to claim that BoD entails something other than the Sacrament of Baptism effecting salvation through the votum, i.e. some Pelagian-heretical ex opere operantis self-salvation and that salvation can occur without the agency of the Sacraments acting as instrumental causes of salvation ... something that Trent explicitly condemns as heretical

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2025, 09:17:45 AM »

Quote

So the Sacrosanct Roman Church "believes, professes, and preaches ... that so much weight (strength / power) does the unity of the ecclesiastical body have that the Sacraments of the Church can profit to salvation for those only who remain in it [the unity of the body].

In other words, the Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Baptism) cannot even PROFIT TO SALVATION to those who remain outside the unity of the body, meaning that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot lead to the salvation of any who are not in the unity of the ecclesiastical BODY. This passage alone renders heretical the entire "Soul of the Church" theory, where people can be saved by being in the soul of the Church but not in the body of the Church. Yet BoD can only exist if the Sacrament of Baptism can profit the souls receiving it via the votum to salvation.

Great find, Ladislaus. This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:

1. He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved. (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2. He who does not believe, will be condemned. (No belief = no membership = damnation).

The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD). These are neither saved, nor condemned. They aren't members in the Church but they die justified. Which leaves them to Limbo.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2025, 09:47:27 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 19, 2025, 09:17:45 AM

Great find, Ladislaus. This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:

1. He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved. (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2. He who does not believe, will be condemned. (No belief = no membership = damnation).

The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD). These are neither saved, nor condemned. They aren't members in the Church but they die justified. Which leaves them to Limbo.

Yes, that passage confused me since I was a young man ... that in between.

It's also consistent with St. Ambrose declaring that those who have some kind of benefit from a repentance of sorts (like Valentinian) are, like the actual martyrs, possibly "washed but not crowned", where washing refers to a type of justification or at least non-condemnation, and crowning to entry into the Beatific Vision. St. Gregory nαzιanzen teaches, in rejecting BoD explicitly, that there are some who are not good enough to be glorified (enter the Kingdom) but not bad enough to be punished. It all fits.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2025, 10:02:41 AM »

Good points here. I have always felt that the Council of Florence is the most definitive declaration when it comes to the topic of "Salvation outside the Church." I watched this one guy, Christian Wagner, and he wrote an article on Salvation outside the Church, https://www.christianbwagner.com/post/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-vatican-i-and-ven-pius-xii Unfortunately, he is like so many others who begin with the dogma Extra Ecclsiam Nulla Salus, and then talk themselves into a corner by saying Extra Ecclesiam Salus Interdum, "Salvation outside the Church sometimes."

I watched some of his Twitter talk on the issue and he maintained that "There was not a single theologian at the Vatican Council I who supported Fr. Feeney's position"...blah, blah, blah. Too many guys today, who do not understand the issue, begin their reasoning with infallible definitions, only to end up arguing themselves into hypothetical corners. The process should be the exact opposite, we reason from the hypothetical to infallible definitions.

Somewhere at home I have a Latin docuмent, pre-Vatican II, where the theologian says that the Blessed Virgin, although justified, needed to have the sacrament of baptism to be saved; because only the sacrament of baptism incorporates us into the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2025, 10:06:40 AM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on February 19, 2025, 10:02:41 AM

I watched some of his Twitter talk on the issue and he maintained that "There was not a single theologian at the Vatican Council I who supported Fr. Feeney's position"...blah, blah, blah.

Right, so what? Despite the big deal they raise about this, Father Cekada could only find 2 dozen theologians who even dealt with the subject, and the vast majority simply mentioned it in passing, "Yep, BoD". There was almost no in-depth theological discussion of it since Sts. Bellarmine and Alphonsus, just a mere mention and regurgitation.

On the contrary, every single theologian (with one possible exception, Guerard des Laurier) concluded that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass are Catholic.

BoD is nonsense. Majority of Church Fathers rejected it, several quite explicitly. St. Ambrose said something about Valentinian, but he linked his status to those of martyrs who are also "washed but not crowned" and elsewhere states, in "De Sacramentis" that even noble catechumens cannot be saved without receiving the Sacrament. St. Augustine in a very youthful speculation (admits it's speculation) throws BoD theory out there, but then retracts it so forceful after his more mature anti-Pelagian days that his are some of the most powerful ANTI-BoD statements in existence. St. Fulgentius his disciple rejects BoD and the EENS language of Florence comes largely from him. After St. Fulgentius, there's not another mention of "BoD" until there's a debate among the pre-scholastics, Hugh of St. Victor (for) and Abelard (against). Peter Lombard then writes to St. Bernard asking his opinion and St. Bernard very tentatively sides with "Augustine" (or so he mistakenly thinks), stating that he'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right on his own. While he was a saintly man, obviously, theology was not his strength and clearly truth comes before being a respecter of persons, and St. Bernard very unjustly persecuted Abelard for "heresy" later because Abelard actually pioneered the scholastic method that St. Thomas later adopted, in his seminal work "Sic et Non", in which he did exactly what St. Thomas later did, examine a position and then with a view toward the CONTRARY positions, i.e. the objections, etc. St. Bernard considered it impious to subject faith to this type of reason. He was dead wrong, and Abelard right. Abelard is really the father of the scholastic method.

In any case, after Peter Lombard went with St. Bernard, in his "Sentences", the manual used by nearly all the scholastics, and St. Thomas went with it ... it went viral.

But there's zero evidence of BoD having been revealed or being anything other than sheer speculation. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to flow logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma.

Finally, the fruits of BoD are completely pernicious. No good comes of it. If God chooses to save some by BoD, that He hasn't revealed, then glory to Him. But my not believing in it doesn't change what God actually does. Meanwhile, believing in BoD ironically erodes belief in the necessity of Baptism, making salvation by BoD even less likely, for, as Father Feeney put it, people start to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself. It leads inexorably to religious indifferentism and EENS-denial.

At the very least, all discussion of it must be banned. If I were Pope, before studying it for formal condemnation, I would immediately forbid any mention of BoD among Catholics and would order mention of it expunged from the works of St. Thomas, St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, and all of them.

Clemens · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2025, 11:32:16 AM »

What about a version of Baptism of desire which would be God giving the soul the actual sacrament of Baptism while dispensing the need for water ? The person would then be incorporated into the Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and have actually received the sacrament of Baptism itself, but in an invisible way. I'm not sure if this is compatible with sacramental theology though.

I know that this is probably not what a lot of the people who believe in BoD hold, but this seems to me like it would make it compatible with all of the dogmatic definitions on EENS.

Also, since Latin doesn't have definite articles, maybe the Council of Florence meant that it is only in the Unity of the Body that some of the Sacraments profit for salvation, which could be excluding Baptism.

For instance, if I say Occurrit ursis, how do you know if the person met all the bears, or only some bears ? I might be wrong because I'm no Latin expert though.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2025, 11:38:15 AM »

Quote from: Clemens on February 19, 2025, 11:32:16 AM

What about a version of Baptism of desire which would be God giving the soul the actual sacrament of Baptism while dispensing the need for water ? The person would then be incorporated into the Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and have actually received the sacrament of Baptism itself, but in an invisible way. I'm not sure if this is compatible with sacramental theology though.

I know that this is probably not what a lot of the people who believe in BoD hold, but this seems to me like it would make it compatible with all of the dogmatic definitions on EENS.

Also, since Latin doesn't have definite articles, maybe the Council of Florence meant that it is only in the Unity of the Body that some of the Sacraments profit for salvation, which could be excluding Baptism.

For instance, if I say Occurrit ursis, how do you know if the person met all the bears, or only some bears ? I might be wrong because I'm no Latin expert though.

"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.

Clemens · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2025, 11:42:51 AM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on February 19, 2025, 11:38:15 AM

"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.

Could this be explained by saying that the water would be there but In voto instead of In re ?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2025, 12:04:44 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on February 19, 2025, 11:38:15 AM

"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.

OA,

This is for you, since you're a great admirer of Brownson. I've no intention to revisit this oft repeated topic, which, if people want to ponder, there's plenty of good threads here already to review.

But, OA, you do admit that Brownson disagreed with you, yes?

Quote

It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.

Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.

Was Brownson being "ridiculous"?

SimpleMan · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2025, 12:31:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 19, 2025, 10:06:40 AM

But there's zero evidence of BoD having been revealed or being anything other than sheer speculation. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to flow logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma.

Finally, the fruits of BoD are completely pernicious. No good comes of it. If God chooses to save some by BoD, that He hasn't revealed, then glory to Him. But my not believing in it doesn't change what God actually does. Meanwhile, believing in BoD ironically erodes belief in the necessity of Baptism, making salvation by BoD even less likely, for, as Father Feeney put it, people start to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself. It leads inexorably to religious indifferentism and EENS-denial.

Quite agreed. At the end of the day, that's all BOD is, speculation.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2025, 12:45:19 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 19, 2025, 12:04:44 PM

OA,

This is for you, since you're a great admirer of Brownson. I've no intention to revisit this oft repeated topic, which, if people want to ponder, there's plenty of good threads here already to review.

But, OA, you do admit that Brownson disagreed with you, yes?

Was Brownson being "ridiculous"?

Decem Decem, you ought to mean what you say. You obviously had the intention of revisiting "this oft repeated topic," which is evidenced by the fact that you revisited it. Brownson, in 1874, two years before his death, wrote an article precisely against those who deny the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Brownson never in his writings opened the door of salvation to those imaginary people of good will, those people whom catholic liberals like to parade in their own minds, people who never knew the Church but somehow wanted to enter it. In fact this is what Brownson said about the matter:

"To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is only generally true, and therefore not a catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if catholic, are not generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men can come to Christ and be saved without the church or union with Christ in the church, she is not Catholic, and it is false to call her the one holy Catholic Church, as in the creed. The latitudinarianism which explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, and which is so widely prevalent, is a denial, in principle, of the catholicity of the church, and of the faith she holds and teaches, and seems to us to grow out of forgetfulness of the relation of the church to the Incarnation, her office in the economy of salvation, the teleological character of the Christian order, the religion of the end, and the disposition of the modern world to mistake liberality for charity...One thing is certain, namely, that no one can be saved, enter into the kingdom of God, or attain to beatitude, without being regenerated or born again of the incarnate Word, or if not united to regenerated humanity in Christ."
"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," April, 1874

And in the same article Brownson quotes the Council of Florence and says that unbaptized infants go to hell, in infernos, though they will not suffer for actual sins, of which they were incapable. Hopefully this clears up your confusion about Brownson.

Author Topic: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD (Read 7861 times)

Ladislaus

Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

SimpleMan

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Ladislaus

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

AnthonyPadua

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Ladislaus

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Pax Vobis

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Ladislaus

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

OABrownson1876

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Ladislaus

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Clemens

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

OABrownson1876

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

Clemens

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

DecemRationis

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

SimpleMan

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD

OABrownson1876

Re: Council of Florence: a final nail in the coffin of BoD