Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD  (Read 22289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
DR asserted that we must believe in "BoD" ... regardless of the fact that the Magisterium has never clarified what "BoD" means.

But Father Feeney does believe in a "BoD", a desire that could bring about the one effect of the Sacrament, a remission of sin and putting the soul into a state of justification.  He simply does not believe that BoD can have the effect of allowing a soul to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatific Vision.

I agree with that.  So I guess I believe in "BoD" as well.  I just don't believe the same thing about it that everyone assumes of BoD.  And nowhere has the Magisterium clarified that I must believe that this "BoD" suffices to allow souls to enter Heaven.

Where has this opinion about "BoD" been condemned by the Magisterium?

So, I generally do not qualify it when I said that "I don't believe in BoD", whereas perhaps I should say "I believe in BoD" ... but my understanding of it differs from the popular perception of it.
Same here. I would add that BoD cannot be vicariously willed for another person. I am hearing this nonsense more frequently amongst those who desire the baptism of miscarried or aborted infants.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Same here. I would add that BoD cannot be vicariously willed for another person. I am hearing this nonsense more frequently amongst those who desire the baptism of miscarried or aborted infants.

Yes, I have heard that one as well.  That would somehow give it an ex opere operato effect to the votum vis-a-vis the infant.  Now, the requisite intention to be baptized is in fact supplied for by the parents/godparents at the reception of Baptism, but that's completely different since it's the Sacrament that effects the justification, not the vicarious intention.

Cajetan floated this idea, but St. Pius V ordered it expunged from his commentary.


Justification refers to being in a state of sanctifying grace, whereas salvation refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven (the Beatific Vision).  In this life, we can only be in a state of justification, and it then requires a distinct grace of final perseverance to transition into the state of salvation.

So we speak of the Old Testament "just", where they were in a state of sanctifying grace and yet were not yet saved and had not entered Heaven.

Now, the Dimonds argue that justification is impossible without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Fr. Feeney's position is that it's possible, but doesn't suffice for final salvation, and they make an analogy between this state and that of the OT just or justified.  He did not believe, as a practical matter, that God would allow anyone who died justified not to be saved, that He somehow, even if in a manner unknown to us, made sure that all His elect received the Sacrament of Baptism and thus would be saved.  When asked the hypothetical of, if this were possible, what would happen to such a soul, and he responded I don't know.  I hold that they would enter a place like Limbo if they also died without any debt or stain of actual sin (as would be the case with an unbaptized martyr) or else in a Limbo-like state with lesser degrees of suffering that Hell proper.  But that's a side point.
Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.

This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.

So to say they would go to a Limbo not unlike that of the infants, is extremely unlikely.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Given in that context, I suppose this is where I would place my position along with the Dimonds on justification. As the justification of the OT Patriarchs is wholly different than the justification Fr. Feeney proposes for the unbaptized after the Resurrection, as those under the Old Covenant were still able to attain justification by the merits of the OT sacrifices and rites which were made in the hope of the Redemption to come. So their sin offerings were accepted only insofar as they were united with Christ in the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Cross at the close of the Old Covenant.

This is not possible for the unbaptized because after the establishment of the Church and Sacraments, post-Resurrection, the only means of justification would be by those same Sacraments. They are the only way to be justified, as there is no other way that the unbaptized can receive the remission of actual sins without the laver of regeneration. And we all know that without God's grace, it is impossible for adults to be free from actual sin, so even if they died with a single sin on their soul they would still merit hellfire. Unlike unbaptized infants who cannot commit actual sin, and therefore lose the Beatific Vision, but do not merit hellfire.

I think this point could be debated.  St. Ambrose, as I mentioned, posited a washing without the crowning, for both unbaptized martyrs and also for those like Valentinian.  But all these open questions serve again to demonstrate that no "Baptism of Desire" in the sense of it having the effect of sufficing for salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism has ever been taught by the Church.

I think this point could be debated.  St. Ambrose, as I mentioned, posited a washing without the crowning, for both unbaptized martyrs and also for those like Valentinian.  But all these open questions serve again to demonstrate that no "Baptism of Desire" in the sense of it having the effect of sufficing for salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism has ever been taught by the Church.
And therein lies the problem. There are no true shepherds these days (in the sense of teaching authority), so many are being led astray by opinions (no matter how well-informed) rather than the bedrock of Church teaching.