Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Gregory I on February 05, 2012, 05:12:54 PM
-
So, here I go again to make a fool of myself:
Recently I have retracted by position that sacramental WATER baptism alone can lead a person to eternal life.
I condemn this notion. This is NOT the ONLY thing that the fathers give unanimous consent to. My mistakes were subtle, but they were still mistakes:
1. Assuming BOD and BOB are separate from from BOW. They are ONE.
2. Assuming that charity ALONE cannot remit sins. This is FALSE and CONDEMNED by the church! In fact, it strikes at the heart of DENYING BOD.
3. Assumig the church has not pronounced on BOD. FALSE! It has affirmed the concept magisterially.
4. I did not know this, but Fr. Feeney's exact conception of justification through desire was CONDEMNED 400 years before him!
5. It is true that the unanimous consent of the fathers gives witness to the obligation all have to receive the sacrament of baptism. But the OTHER unanimous opinion they hold is that of the possibility of salvation apart from WATER baptism.
You cannot trust the Dimond Brothers to do your thinking for you.
It is true, none are saved without water baptism. But water baptism is also united to the sanctifying BLOOD of Christ and the Power of the Holy Spirit. Since Christ shed his blood in CHARITY, Charity and his blood have been divinely fused together and made one. Therefore, one who is saved through CHARITY ALONE, that is, one who is on fire with the love of God and earnestly desires that most necessary sacrament of baptism, should he die without the Waters of baptism, will, nevertheless, by his CHARITY attain to the reality of that very sacrament: Justification.
So we see that there is no salvation without baptism, but there are several ways of being incorporated into the REALITY of the sacrament.
-
Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian:
Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood; and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot. Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin; and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God ? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony--Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the catholic church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity.
-
And it is BECAUSE Of this inseparability of each with the other, that BOD is to be conceived at all.
The problem Curious Catholic is your DENIAL of this fact:
Charity can remit sin.
Your conception of Baptism is not quite right. Baptism is ONE and the three constituent elements of baptism, the Water, blood and Spirit are ONE in their unity with each other.
This unity is a TRINITARIAN unity.
For example, The Blood of Christ is Like the Father. The Water of Baptism is like the Son (Grace united to matter/ Christ incarnate), and the Sanctifying action is like the Spirit, proceeding from the blood (Father) and Water (Son).
Yet, The Spirit can be Principally active in an activity, not APART from Christ, but he is implicitly present where the activity of the spirit is present.
Similarly, it is BECAUSE of the Baptismal Unity that when the Spirit operates in the hearts of individual who sincerely desire baptism, who RECOGNIZE THEIR OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE IT and who desire to receive it, they can be justified.
Notice, this is not APART from the Sacrament, but BECAUSE of it.
THe REALITY of the Sacrament is what it effects.
For you to assert that ONLY baptism of WATER can obtain remission of sins and justification, you HAVE to deny that Charity, before baptism can remit sins.
Therefore, let me ask YOU:
Before Baptism, can CHARITY remit sins? P.S. THe Dimond Brothers do not adress this in their book.
They take the other condemnations of Baius out of Context with the other condemnations and do not properly address the issue.
NOW:
Does Charity, before baptism, remit sins?
http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-thesis.htm
-
BOD was taught by many Saints, and also by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. So it seems that history is in favor of BOD.
-
Thank you, Gregory I, for your insightful post about Baptism. It really helps us to combat the errors of the Feeneyites.
-
They are sincere, but they are blinded to this one fact: Charity, before baptism can remit sins. This is EXPLICITLY taught by the Catholic Church in the condemnations of Baius.
-
Believe what you must. As for me, I'll believe as Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught:
John 3:5
-
Believe what you must. As for me, I'll believe as Our Lord, Jesus Christ taught:
John 3:5
How very... oh what's the word..... protestant.
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.
Wow, I actually did sound like a Protestant. Unintended. :facepalm:
Ok, how about the Council of Trent?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
-
Sorry Oremus, but it did.
I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.
-
Sorry Oremus, but it did.
I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.
Yeah, I know the same arguments will be hammered out on both sides so I'm not really into starting another debate.
I will say this: I'm not opposed to accepting BOD, I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to convince me. Yes, I've read all of the points, they just don't make sense to me. If it helps, I do read them daily.
-
Sorry Oremus, but it did.
I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.
Yeah, I know the same arguments will be hammered out on both sides so I'm not really into starting another debate.
I will say this: I'm not opposed to accepting BOD, I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to convince me. Yes, I've read all of the points, they just don't make sense to me. If it helps, I do read them daily.
I suppose all we can do is wait for clarification from the Church. Lets pray the Restoration comes soon!
-
Sorry Oremus, but it did.
I'm not about to start another debate on this; I think the OP's point was very good.
Yeah, I know the same arguments will be hammered out on both sides so I'm not really into starting another debate.
I will say this: I'm not opposed to accepting BOD, I just haven't found a compelling enough argument to convince me. Yes, I've read all of the points, they just don't make sense to me. If it helps, I do read them daily.
I suppose all we can do is wait for clarification from the Church. Lets pray the Restoration comes soon!
Agreed!
:pray:
-
:cheers:
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.
Lol. not YOU!!!! :)
Oremus.
-
Oremus-
We will take another angle:
Does Charity convey grace before baptism? Yes or no?
-
Hugh of St. Victor (A.D. 1141)
“Some either through curiosity or zeal are accustomed to inquire whether anyone after the enjoining and proclaiming of the sacrament of baptism can be saved, unless he actually receives the sacrament of baptism itself. For the reasons seem to be manifest and they have many authorities, (if, however, they are said to have authorities, who do not understand); first, because it is said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (John 3, 5), and again: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16). There are many such passages which seem, as it were, to affirm that by no means can he be saved who has not had this sacrament, whatever he may have besides this sacrament. If he should have perfect faith, if hope, if he should have charity, even if he should have a contrite and humble heart which God does not despise, true repentance for the past, firm purpose for the future, whatever he may have, he will not be able to be saved, if he does not have this. All this seems so to them on account of what is written: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
“Yet if someone would ask; what has happened to those who, after shedding blood for Christ, departed this life without the sacrament of water, they dare not say that men of this kind are not saved. And, although one cannot show that this is written in what is mentioned above, yet they dare not say that, because it is not written there, it is to be denied. For he who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost,” did not add: “or by pouring forth his blood instead of water,” and yet this is true, although it is not written here. For if he is saved who received water on account of God, why is he not saved much more who sheds blood on account of God? For it is more to give blood than to receive water. Moreover, what some say is clearly silly, that those who shed blood are saved because with blood they also shed water in the very water which they shed they receive baptism. For if those who are killed are said to have been baptized on account of the moisture of water which drips from their wounds together with the corruption of blood, then those who are suffocated or drowned or are killed by some other kind of death where blood is not shed have not been baptized in their blood and have died for Christ in vain, because they did not shed the moisture of the water which they had within their body. Who would say this? So, he is baptized in blood who dies for Christ, who, even if he does not shed blood from the wound, gives life which is more precious than blood. For he could shed blood and, if he did not give life, shedding blood would be less than giving life. Therefore, he sheds blood well who lays down his life for Christ, and he has his baptism in the virtue of the sacrament, without which to have received the sacrament itself, as it were, is of no benefit. So where this is the case, to be unable to have the sacrament does no harm.
“Thus, it is true, although it is not said there, that he who dies for Christ is baptized in Christ. Thus, they say, it is true, although it is not said there, and it is true because it is said elsewhere, even if it is not said there. For He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God,” the same also said elsewhere: “He who shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father,” (Cf. Matt.10, 32). And so what is not said there, is nevertheless to be understood although it is not said, since it is said elsewhere. Behold therefore why they say it. They say that what is not said is to be understood where it is not said, because it is said elsewhere. If, therefore, this is to be understood in this place where it is not said, since it is said elsewhere: “He who believeth in me, shall not die forever,” (Cf. John 11, 26). Likewise He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God”, He himself said: “He who believeth in me, shall not die for ever.” therefore, either deny faith or concede salvation. What does it seem to you? Where there is faith, where there is hope, where there is charity, finally, where there is the full and perfect virtue of the sacrament, there is no salvation because the sacrament alone is not and it is not, because it cannot be possessed. “He that believeth,” He said, “and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16). Therefore behold there is no doubt but that where there is faith and is baptism, there is salvation.
“And what follows? “But he that believeth not shall be condemned,” (Cf. Mark 16, 16). Why did He wish to speak thus? Why did He not say: “He that believeth not and is not baptized, shall be condemned,” just as He had said: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved?” Why, unless because it is of the will to believe and because he who wishes to believe cannot lack faith. And so in him who does not believe, an evil will is always shown, where there can be no necessity which may be put forth as an excuse. Now to be baptized can be in the will, even when it is not possibility, and on this account justly is good will with the with the devotion of its faith not to be despised, although in a moment of necessity he is prevented from receiving that sacrament of water which is external. Do you wish to know more fully whether or not this reason is proven elsewhere by more manifest authority, although even those authorities which we have mentioned above seem so manifest that there can be no doubt about the truth of them?
“Listen to something more, if by chance this matter about which you should not be in doubt can be shown you more clearly. Blessed Augustine in his book, “On the One Baptism,” speaks as follows: again and again as I consider it, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can fulfill what was lacking to baptism but also faith and conversion of heart, if perhaps assistance could not be rendered for the celebration of the mystery of baptism in straitened circuмstances. You see that he clearly testifies that faith and conversion of heart can suffice for the salvation of good will where it happens that the visible sacrament of water of necessity cannot be had. But lest perhaps you think that he contradicted himself, since afterwards in the Book of Retractions he disapproved of the example of the thief which he had assumed to establish this opinion where he had said that the shedding of blood or faith and change of heart could fulfill the place of baptism, saying:
““In the fourth book, when I said that suffering could take the place of baptism, I did not furnish a sufficiently fitting example in that of the thief about whom there is some doubt as to whether he was baptized,” you should consider that in this place he only corrected an example which he had offered to prove his opinion; he did not reject his opinion. But if you think that that opinion is to be rejected, because the example is corrected, then what he had said is false, that the shedding of blood can take the place of baptism, since the example itself was furnished to prove that. For he does not say: “When I said that faith could have the place of baptism,” but he says: “When I said that suffering could have the place of baptism,” although he had placed both in the one opinion. If, therefore, regarding what he said, that suffering can have the place of baptism, an example has been furnished, since it is established that it is true without any ambiguity, it is clear that the example was afterwards corrected by the opinion was not rejected.
“You should, therefore, either confess that true faith and confession of the heart can fulfill the place of baptism in the moment of necessity or show how true faith and unfeigned charity can be possessed where there is no salvation. Unless perhaps you wish to say that no one can have true faith and true charity, who is not to have the visible sacrament of water. Yet by what reason or by what authority you prove this I do not know. We meanwhile do not ask whether anyone who is not to receive the sacrament of baptism can have these, since this alone as far as this matter is concerned is certain: if there were anyone who had these even without the visible sacrament of water he could not perish. There are many other things which could have been brought up to prove this, but what we have set forth above in the treatment of the sacraments to prove this point we by no means think needs reconsideration.” (Of the Sacraments, II, 6)
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.
Wow, I actually did sound like a Protestant. Unintended. :facepalm:
Ok, how about the Council of Trent?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
This Canon is in relation to those who were suggesting that one could baptise someone with beer or oil. It was to condemn them.
If performing the sacrament one must use clear and natural water. That is what this means. In no way does it deny BoD or BoB. In fact this Canon is almost a direct quote from the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, wherein it also states that not only are there 3 Baptisms of Water, of Blood and of the Holy Ghost(Desire) it also states that Baptism of Blood is the greatest of the 3.
At the Council of Trent they had the Summa Theologica beside the Vulgate. It was THE reference for them. Not too surprising since Summa Theologica literally would be translated as "Everything about Theology" by St. Thomas Aquinas.
-
Yes, it condemns two scenarios:
What LP said about baptism with invalid matter.
It also condemns those who say they can receive justification without water baptism. I.E. Protestant heretics.
Anyone who believes that, and denies their obligation to be baptized, cannot have BOD, for they mock the sacrament and the precept of our Lord that none are saved without it.
If anyone is to be saved either through Baptism itself or Baptism of desire, they must acknowledge their obligation to receive it.
-
I forgot this:
1917 Code of Canon Law
The concept of baptism of desire has been incorporated into canon law.
“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)
-
Since St.John is quoted, it is well to remember that both the beloved disciple and Christ Himself confirm the Catholic doctrine of perfect contrition.
1 Jn 4:7,16 Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God ... and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.
Jn 14:23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.
These words show that justifying grace is conferred on account of pure love of God, which is the first and greatest commandment. This is why even St.Paul ranks charity (1 Cor 13:13) as the most excellent among the virtues.
It appears to me that most of those who agree with Fr.Feeney do so out of some concern, understandable but in my opinion, misguided, that if we accept BOD than we won't proclaim the necessity of the sacrament to the unbaptized. But nothing could be further from the truth, as the lives of the Saints who accepted the doctrine show.
Also, it can be disproved by analogy with the other sacraments and their corresponding extraordinary means. No Catholic who makes frequent acts of love for God will ever, ever, find himself disparaging the sacrament of penance as a result when it becomes possible for him to reach a priest. Likewise, those who communicate spiritually will never find scorn the Holy Eucharist when they are able to receive it. Similarly, only if approach to baptism is morally or physically impossible, will the desire to receive it suffice. Otherwise, that same desire will manifest itself in actual approach to the sacrament.
I believe, on the authority of both St.Augustine and St.Thomas, by the way, that the like incident happened to Cornelius. He received the Holy Ghost before baptism, as the text says, and as the Doctors comment on the passage, but was impelled to receive the sacrament nonetheless since this was possible to him.
-
:cheers:
:cheers:
-
SO you don't believe the teaching of the Church, just scripture?
No, I believe scripture as interpreted by the Church. I agree with you. I disagree with Oremus who's seeming to imply that one is not able to be saved via BOD; and he sounds just like a protestant quoting scripture without reference to Church interpretation.
Wow, I actually did sound like a Protestant. Unintended. :facepalm:
Ok, how about the Council of Trent?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
This Canon is in relation to those who were suggesting that one could baptise someone with beer or oil. It was to condemn them.
If performing the sacrament one must use clear and natural water. That is what this means. In no way does it deny BoD or BoB. In fact this Canon is almost a direct quote from the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, wherein it also states that not only are there 3 Baptisms of Water, of Blood and of the Holy Ghost(Desire) it also states that Baptism of Blood is the greatest of the 3.
At the Council of Trent they had the Summa Theologica beside the Vulgate. It was THE reference for them. Not too surprising since Summa Theologica literally would be translated as "Everything about Theology" by St. Thomas Aquinas.
I could understand that argument if the canon stopped at "that tue and natural is not of necessity for baptism," but it continues: "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."
-
I forgot this:
1917 Code of Canon Law
The concept of baptism of desire has been incorporated into canon law.
“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)
Help me with this one because it appears to confirm the necessity of water.
"is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water..."
-
And please let me clarify my stance: I am not trying to be stubborn. I do recognize that BOD may be possible.
But the arguments I've read are vague and sometimes seem to be a stretch of interpretations. If I were to see a clear teaching from a Pope or dogmatic council in favor of BOD, I would certainly adhere. I just don't believe I've seen that yet.
Interestingly enough, I found a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger where he says "Feeneyites" should not be considered heretics:
"With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox. (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)"
-
That's because Modernists are a sewer-drain of all errors. If you are going to him for the truth, you are in bad shape!
The Feeneyites only need to understand one thing: Saying "You must be baptized with water" DOES NOT mean that there is no baptism of desire. If I said "You must confess your sins" it doesn't mean there isn't perfect contrition. If I say "Don't work on Sunday" that doesn't mean you can't do it if you have to feed your family and there is no other option.
What is it about letter vs. spirit of the law that isn't sinking in?
What do you expect the Church to say, "All Catholics must be baptized with water, except those who die as catechumens who have desire and those who are martyred who have baptism of blood." No. Read between the lines. It is speaking generally, all must be baptized. Theologians then interpret the general statements of the Church, and they interpreted them in favor of baptism of desire.
-
Theologians then interpret the general statements of the Church, and they interpreted them in favor of baptism of desire.
The problem is when every doofus with an Internet connection starts to fancy himself a theologian :)
-
What do you expect the Church to say, "All Catholics must be baptized with water, except those who die as catechumens who have desire and those who are martyred who have baptism of blood." No. Read between the lines. It is speaking generally, all must be baptized. Theologians then interpret the general statements of the Church, and they interpreted them in favor of baptism of desire.
Actually that would be great. Whats wrong with doing that?
It's not my duty to read between the lines, nor am I equipped to do so. If the Church wants me to believe in BOD, why hasn't It been dogmatically defined?
-
Theologians then interpret the general statements of the Church, and they interpreted them in favor of baptism of desire.
The problem is when every doofus with an Internet connection starts to fancy himself a theologian :)
If that was directed to me, I don't fancy myself a theologian. Far from it.
-
Oremus,
Canon 737. § 1. of the Code of Canon Law (1917) does not refer to the necessity of WATER. It refers to the necessity of BAPTISM, meaning, in the final analysis, the GRACE of baptism.
The Latin text says:-
Baptismatus, Sacramentorum janua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
The principal part of this sentence describes how the sacrament of baptism must be administered for it to be valid.
Baptismatus valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
=Baptism is not validly conferred, except through a washing of true and natural water using the prescribed form of words.
Secondary to this, by way of apposition, it elaborates on the meaning of baptism in respect of two points:-
a)
[Baptismatus] Sacramentorum janua ac fundamentum.
=[Baptism is] the entrance to and the beginning of the sacraments.
b)
[Baptismatus] omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem.
=[Baptism] in reality or at least in desire [is] necessary to everyone for salvation.
-
BOB/D has been taught "always and everywhere" to the point that it falls under the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium:
Decree of Archbishop of Boston, April 18, 1949 – Suppressing Feeney and SBC
Letter of the Holy Office, August 8, 1949 – The True Sense of the Catholic Doctrine that There Is No Salvation Outside The Church
Decree of Excommunication, 13 February 1953 – Excommunicating Leonard Feeney
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949
Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.
Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.
Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.
Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (<Denzinger>, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “<imprimatur,>“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
Pius XII – Decree Excommunicating Leonard Feeney, 13 February 1953
Prior to the excommunication, Feeney received the following summons to appear before the Holy Office from Cardinal Pizzardo on November 22, 1952.
The Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
DECREE
THE PRIEST LEONARD FEENEY IS DECLARED EXCOMMUNICATED
Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended a divinis for grave disobedience toward church authority, has not, despite repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, come to his senses, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, have, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
On Thursday, 12 February 1953, our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
Given at Rome, at the headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
-
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)
Vol. 14, TOLERATION, J. Pohle
But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism, that the Catholic Church, in virtue of the principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one's own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person. Not that she refers, as is often stated, the eternal salvation of the heterodox solely and exclusively to "invincible ignorance", and thus makes sanctifying ignorance a convenient gate to heaven for the stupid. She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church. Whoever indeed has recognized the true Church of Christ, but contrary to his better knowledge refuses to enter it, and whoever becomes perplexed as to the truth of his belief, but fails to investigate his doubts seriously, no longer lives in good faith, but exposes himself to the danger of eternal damnation, since he rashly contravenes an important command of God. Otherwise the gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution "Singulari quadam" of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: "Sed tamen pro certo...." (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger n. 1647)
. . . As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel: . . . no grace is given outside the Church. . . just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: . . . (Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ). . . Catholics who are conversant with the teachings of their Church know how to draw the proper conclusions. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Catechism No.3
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
IMPRIMATURS:
Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885
Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885
Archbishop Michael Augustine N.Y. 1901
Archbishop Patrick Hayes N.Y. 1921
NIHIL OBSTATS:
Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901
Arthur Scanlan, Censor Librorum 1921
Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Catholic Dictionary (1929)
SOUL OF THE CHURCH
From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Pius IX Solemn Allocution
Singulari Quadam
December 9, 1854
It is to be held of faith that none can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church . . . but nevertheless it is equally certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if that ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty in the matter in the eyes of the Lord.
(Denzinger 1641,ff.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Pius IX Encyclical
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
August 10, 1863
We all know that those who are invincibly ignorant of our religion and who nevertheless lead an honest and upright life, can, under the influence of divine light and divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who knows and sees the mind, the heart, the thoughts, and the dispositions of every man, cannot in His infinite bounty and clemency permit any one to suffer eternal punishment who is not guilty through his own fault."
(Denzinger 1677)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Bernard
"De Baptismo"
"What is clearer than that the will is taken for the act, when the act is excluded by necessity?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Augustine
Treatise on Baptism
"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body."
"All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 7, HERESY, J. Wilhelm
Once heresy is in possession it tightens its grip by the thousand subtle and often unconscious influences which mould a man's life. A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 6, GOOD FAITH, Joseph F, Delaney
One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless. This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 8, JUSTIFICATION, J. Pohle
"But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 2, BAPTISM, William H.W. Fanning
X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
. . .It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. (1) The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. . .This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. . . and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius. . . It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater
(Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946)
SALVATION
Outside the Church. "Outside the Church, no salvation." This dogma refers to those who are outside the Church by their own fault. There is a command to enter the Church, which is the prescribed way to Heaven. He who refuses to join the Church which Christ founded, recognizing that Christ comanded adhesion to his Church, is in the way of perdition. But those who are in invincible ignorance will not be condemned merely on account of their ignorance. . .Those non-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God's will.
DESIRE, BAPTISM OF, is one of the two possible substitutes for Baptism of water. When it is not possible thus to be baptized, an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. Such acts are a perfect and ultimate diposition calling for the infusion of sanctifying grace, and at least implicitly include a desire and intention to receive Baptism of water should occasion offer. Infants are not capable of Baptism of desire. An heathen, believing, even though in a confused way, in a God whose will should be done and desiring to do that will whatever it may be, probably has Baptism of desire. It may reasonably be assumed that vast numbers of persons unbaptized by water have thus been rendered capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica
Part II. Question 66. Article 11
". . . a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentence."
"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed."
"The other two. however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not Sacraments."
Article 12.
". . .the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms: most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit of of Repentence, by way of desire; but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the Divine act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power; in the Baptim of Repentence by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood....
Question 68. Article 2.
". . . the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forstalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctrinal and Scriptural Catechism
Rev. P. Collot, Doctor of the Sorbonne (1904) Approved by Archbishop John Hughes, D.D., NY.
Q. How [can baptism be supplied] in adults?
A. Either by martyrdom or by an act of charity, with the desire of receiving it as soon as they can.
Children have but one way, which is martyrdom; and adults have two, martyrdom or an act of charity, together with the desire or receiving it as soon as possible.
This is the reason why it is said that there are three sorts of Baptism: the Baptism of blood, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost or of desire, and the Baptism of water, although in reality there is but one, which is that given with water, while pronouncing the words: In the name oft he Father, etc.
Q. Does attrition of itself justify the sinner?
A. No; but it disposes him to receive the grace of justification by absolution, in which the efficacy of the sacrament of Penance principally consists.
Q. What difference is there between perfect contrition and attrition?
A. !st. The one is caused by love, and the other by shame or fear. 2nd. The one justifies the sinner, and the other only disposes him for justification [by absolution].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Ambrose, "De obitu Valentiniani"
"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me now what else have we if not desire and will? He in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church and immediately baptized by me . . . . Had he not then the grace which he desired so earnestly? Did he not have the grace he demanded? Certainly, for he who demands receives. But if it is a fact that because the sacraments are not solemnly celebrated they have no value, then the martyrs if they were only catechumens would not receive the crown of glory; for no one is crowned who is not initiated. But if people are absolved in their own blood, then this man's piety and will absolved him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
. . . should any unforseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
. . . such is the efficacy of true contrition. . . that through it we obtain from God the immediate pardon of our sins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology
(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See)
Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY
3. Whoever through his own fault remains outside the Church will not be saved.
If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic Church.
The majority of men who have been brought up in heresy think that they belong to the true Church; their error is not due to hatred of God. A man who leads a good life and has the love of God in his heart, really belongs to the Church, and such a one is saved, not by his heresy, but by belonging to the Church. St. Peter said: "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh justice is acceptable to Him" (Acts x. 35). . . .All who lived up to their lights were Christians, though they might have been looked upon as godless, as, e.g., Socrates among the Greeks, Abraham and Elias among the Jews. They do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, they are not externally in union with the Church, but they are of the soul of the Church, i.e., they have the sentiments which the members of the Church should have.
Thus the Catholic Church has members both visible and invisible.
The visible members are those who have been received into the Church by Baptism. The following are not members: The unbaptized (heathens, Jews, Mohammedans), formal heretics (Protestants), and schismatics (the Greeks), those who are excommunicated. The invisible members are those who without any fault of their own are outside the Church leading God-fearing lives."
If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was αssαssιnαtҽd; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets, and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all thaty He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His superabundant loving kindness. But all the temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire.
God has imprinted the natural law on the heart of every man; this forms the fundamental rule of human actions.
A young child who has done something wrong - lied, perhaps, or committed a theft, feels uncomfortable, frightened, or ashamed; though it may never have heard of the Ten Commandments, it is conscious that it has done amiss. It is the same with heathen who knows nothing about God's commandments. Hence we may conclude that there is a LAW OF NATURE in every human heart, a law not written upon it, but inborn in it; an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong. St. Paul declares that the Gentiles do by nature those things that are of the law (what the Ten Commandments enjoin), and consequently they will be judged by God according to the natural law (Rom. ii. 14-16).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Replies, Vol II.
Fathers Rumble and Carty
Imprimatur 1940 Archbishop John G. Murray
722. Does Catholic doctrine allow that the soul of an unbaptized heathen can enter heaven?
Not in the case of unbaptized infants who die before coming to the use of reason and the stage of personal responsibility. The heathens who do come to the age of personal responsibility can attain to the supernatural order of grace and inherit that very heaven for which baptism is normally required on certain conditions. For example, a pagan may never have heard of the Gospel, or having heard of it, may have quite failed to grasp its significance. He remains a heathen, knowing no better, and dies without receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism. In such a case God will not blame him for that for which he is really not responsible. At the same time, God wills all men to be saved, and will certainly give that heathen sufficient grace for his salvation according to the condition in which he is. If that heathen, under the influence of interior promptings of conscience and the actual inspirations of grace given by God, repents sincerely before death of such moral lapses as he has committed during life, he will secure forgiveness, and save his soul in view of the Baptism he would have been willing to receive had he known it to be necessary, and could he have done so. We Catholics say that such a heathen has been saved by Baptism of Desire. The desire, of course, is implicit only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Robert Bellarmine "De Ecclesia Militante"
". . . (again) there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council of Trent, Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4
If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous, and that without them or their desire [aut eorum voto] men can obtain from God the grace of justification through faith alone, although all [Sacraments] are not necessary for every individual: Let him be Anathema.
[Denzinger 847]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story of a Soul, St. Therese of Lisiuex,
Chapter One
I saw something further; that Our Lord's love shines out just as much through a little soul who yields comepletely to His Grace as it does through the greatest. True love is shown in self-abasement, and if everyone were like the saintly doctors who adorn the Church, it would seem that God had not far enough to stoop when He came to them. But He has, in fact, created the child who knows nothing and can only make feeble cries; and the poor savage with only the natural law to guide him; and it is to hearts such as these that He Stoops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 10 CHURCH, G.H. Joyce
The Necessary Means of Salvation. - In the preceding examination of the Scriptural doctrine regarding the Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine. Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained. From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained: it is the only means.
This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid: knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgement" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.) The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts, receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has
commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should wilfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfil His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of wilful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.
It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfil all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of santification which the Church offers are denied to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Pius XII Encyclical
Humani Generis
August 12, 1950
. . . although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incuмbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as it it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgement on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources; and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgement on a matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
It is true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for its belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh: on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Pius XI Encyclical
Mortalium animos, Jan. 6, 1928
The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain for ever intact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men. This authority is indeed daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him; but it has the further office of defining some truth with solemn decree whenever it is opportune, and whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or again to impress the minds of the faithful with a clearer and more detailed explanation of the articles of sacred doctrine. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no fresh invention is introduced, nothing new is ever added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained within the deposit of Revelation divinely committed to the Church; but truths which to some perhaps may still seem obscure are rendered clear, or a truth which some may have called into question is declared to be of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 10 MASS, J. Pohle
. . . the Church has surrounded with certain conditions, which priests are bound in obedience to observe, the application of Mass for certain classes of the living and dead . . . For a deceased heretic the private and hypothetical application of the Mass is allowed only when the priest has good grounds for believing that the deceased held his error in good faith (bona fide. Cf. S.C. Officii, 7 April, 1875). . . In like manner Mass may be celebrated privately for the souls of deceased Jews and heathens, who have lead an upright life . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added Comments: The sources in which this Catholic doctrine can be found are certainly not limited to the sources referenced here. It may even be said that the defense of this doctrine has been overdone since only a couple of these authoritative quotes should be sufficient proof for any Catholic, especially the Council of Trent, the Encyclical "Quanto Conficiamur" or the Letter from the Holy Office under Pius XII explaining the doctrine for Fr. Feeney. The last excerpt is alone sufficient to show the Church's official recognition of this doctrine in a practical way by allowing priest's to offer Mass for the souls of deceased non-Catholics.
Careful note should be taken especially of what Pope Pius XII says in Humani Generis on page eleven. We can be sure that Pope Pius XII had this "grave controversy" of the Boston College in mind when he authored this Encyclical as it was written after the Declaration letter of the Holy Office, and before Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. He makes it clear that it is solely the office of the living Teaching authority to interpret, elucidate and explain that which may be only implicitly and obscurely contained within the deposit of faith.
The possibility of baptism of desire in a non-Catholic is a solid teaching of our faith. However, the probability of such a thing occuring is another matter. Judging from the Church's Ordinary teaching on this it would seem that such justification by perfect love and contrition is possible but not very probable. It would seem silly, however, to expect the Church to define the degree of probability: whether it is simply difficult, very difficult, or very-very difficult, etc. This doctrine clearly shows the infinite Mercy of God and supports the teachings that God wills the salvation of all men, and that if anyone is damned it is through their own fault.
The objection may be raised that the doctrine of Baptism of Desire with invincible ignorance would destroy the zeal of Catholic missionaries to convert pagans and natives. Those who think this obviously do not understand the doctrine.
We only need to look at the zeal of a Catholic pastor for his parishioners. Even though his parishioners, as Catholics, are in the one true Church - "the way of salvation" - with all the means of grace at their disposal, the parish priest works with much zeal to help keep each member of his flock securely in the state of grace. Knowing this to be so, what must be the zeal of a missionary who seeks to convert savages from "the way of perdition"? The Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire in fact greatly supports the zeal of missionaries in their work of conversion: it gives them a greater hope that any particular savage they work with may just be one who is well disposed to do God's will and be more easily converted to the secure "way of salvation", and possibly having even the implicit desire of Baptism.
It seems that the followers of Fr. Feeney at the St. Benedict Center are coming to see the light. Although they still unfortunately deny the Catholic doctrine of "baptism of desire", they no longer follow Fr. Feeney in considering it to be a heresy: In their January 1992 issue of the Crusader, the doctrine of "baptism of desire" has been classified as an "undefined theory" in which "each man has as much right to his opinion as the other." They have yet to see, however, that they are still in error and have no right to hold an opinion contrary to Church teaching on this matter.
-
OREMUS:
Can Charity remit sins before baptism? Yes or no?
Please address this single question.
-
OREMUS:
Can Charity remit sins before baptism? Yes or no?
Please address this single question.
i will address the question if you would be so kind as to state the relevance of said question.
-
I think it is rather obvious. We are discussing BOD, and I want to know, in your opinion, can a person living a life of fulfilling the commandments, acknowledging the need for baptism, and full of charity obtain the remission of his sins before baptism? Through the said charity?
-
I think it is rather obvious. We are discussing BOD, and I want to know, in your opinion, can a person living a life of fulfilling the commandments, acknowledging the need for baptism, and full of charity obtain the remission of his sins before baptism? Through the said charity?
Yes.
So we're going the Council of Trent, 14th Session route here? If so, you forgot to mention perfect contrition through charity, but that's beside the point I suppose.
-
Not at all.
These questions are not based on Trent.
If a person dies with this charity before baptism, acknowledging his desire to receive it, can he obtain the remission of his sins?
-
Not at all.
These questions are not based on Trent.
If a person dies with this charity before baptism, acknowledging his desire to receive it, can he obtain the remission of his sins?
The possibility cannot be denied. Even the likelyhood all other things considered
-
This really says it all. I do not think it is up to us to strain the gnat anymore than what follows:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (<Denzinger>, n. 801).
The import thing is to convert people to the faith and have them baptized if they have not been. That is what is in our hands. The Dimonds seemingly think one has to accept everyone not water baptized must be damned in order to become a Catholic. There be all and end all. The trick of the devil which will put them outside the Church they claim you must be in (their way and according to their terms) in order to be saved.
-
Oremus, the same people who were at the Council of Trent wrote the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V. It teaches specifically BOD.
Here is the Catechism of Trent:
Chrism Added To Water For Solemn Baptism
But it should be noted that while in case of necessity simple water unmixed with any other ingredient is sufficient for the matter of this Sacrament, yet when Baptism is administered in public with solemn ceremonies the Catholic Church, guided by Apostolic tradition, has uniformly observed the practice of adding holy chrism which, as is clear, more fully signifies the effect of Baptism. The people should also be taught that although it may sometimes be doubtful whether this or that water be genuine, such as the perfection of the Sacrament requires, it can never be a subject of doubt that the only matter from which the Sacrament of Baptism can be formed is natural water.
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly
If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.
They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen 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.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.
-
What is the formula to baptize in Latin? There was a homeless mother in the street with a baby and I asked her if her child was baptized and she said no. Then I asked if I could baptize it (Zoe) and she said yes. I know carry a bottle of holy water with me should the opportunity rise again.
-
Gregory I:
Long time lurker here. For a month I watched you debate against baptism of desire with such zeal and confidence. Now I see you on the other side arguing against baptism of water with the same zeal and confidence. Meanwhile just a few days ago you were completely on the other side. But now here you are saying you've been enlightened in so short a time. Also just a few months ago weren't you unsure if the papacy was even true and were thinking of becoming Eastern Orthodox? Your going back and forth shows that you have no firmly rooted faith, and are carried away from one doctrine to the other, wherever the wind blows. I see you posting Jansenist websites too. I don't mean mean to be offensive but it's obvious that you have faith problems. If you can be so easily swayed from one belief to the other, then you are seriously lacking in faith and you need to find it fast.
-
I almost became Orthodox a few years ago not a few months ago.
Actually, I was Pro-BOD when I signed up, then I was disillusioned by a false argument made by Augustinian. I was very anti-BOD.
I prayed and asked God to convict me on the true position.
The next day, this is what I read:
" St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)
“By shedding both blood and water I showed you the holy baptism of water that you receive through the power of my blood. But I was also showing you the baptism of blood, and this in two ways. The first touches those who are baptized in their own blood for me. Though they could not have the other baptism, their own blood has power because of mine. Others are baptized in fire when they lovingly desire baptism but cannot have it. Nor is there any baptism of desire without [my] blood, for blood has been fused with the fire of divine charity, because it was shed for love.” (The Dialogue)
I love St. Catherine. I have never seen this before. I recognized this as GOd convicting me that this was wrong.
I am not afraid to change to what I believe is true. What you need to understand is that this is an issue I have struggled with for a long time. Both sides know how to make good arguments, and sometimes it seems to just get to the point where you want to just flip a coin.
However, I am confident that God will lead me in the way he wants me to go. I understand your concern,and acknowledge my weakness on this issue.
However, like most BOD deniers, my MAIN PROBLEM was a false conception of BOD in the first place. Now that this has been rectified, I see no more reason to research water baptism only-ism.
On the contrary, I went as far as you can go with it, and by God's grace, I was removed from this erroneous position.
I am a convert from Protestantism: Nine years now. It has been a struggle, because I value the objective truth over human opinion, and I am constantly trying to prove the truth to myself. This is just my personality.
Perhaps there is still some of the Protestant independent thinking. Perhaps it is just my personality.
But wherever there is a chance I could be wrong, it is worth investigating.
In fact, if someone poses a challenge to you on a serious issue, and they present compelling evidence, you are morally obligated to either refute them or adhere to their point of view, lest you be willfully ignorant of the truth.
I ask God to grant me stability, but not fossilization.
The best thing you can do is please pray for me, a sinner.
I entrust my entire soul to the blessed Virgin Mary.
As for that Jansenist website, yes it is Jansenist. I however, am not, nor do I believe in the Logical FALLACY of guilt by association. The author of that site posts both Pro Jansenist, and Anti Jansenist Works, Pro-Feeneyite, and Anti-Feeneyite works.
As such, there is a lot of awesome information regarding St. Augustine, the XVI council of Carthage, etc. Especially concerning BOD, there is THE BEST description of it I have ever heard.
I only ask people to read what is orthodox and Catholic, I do not post links to heretical webpages. If you feel the need to try and point out something like that, well then, that's your prerogative.
My problem is not a lack of Faith, it is working out the details when I believe there is legitimate wiggle room.
On BOD, I ran out of wiggle room, because my PRECONCEPTION which allowed me to think a certain way of BOD, was shattered.
-
In addition, I wish to present a more substantial treatment of the Trinitarian Unity of Baptism:
Let's start with the Apostle John, in 1John 5:6-8
[6] This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. [7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
Pope St. Leo testifies that this verse refers to the Sanctifying Power of the Spirit, the Redemptive Blood of the redeemer, and the Waters of Baptism.
It is easy to see then, that these three are truly one, and their unity is a unity comparable to the unity of the Trinity, the scripture testifying.
But in what are they three?
Let us consider: What is the signification of the humanity of Christ? Why was he incarnate? To be a truly perfect man, so that he could die and truly atone, and that this atonement may be of eternal value, by virtue of it being an act of God. The blood he shed on the Cross has the grace to redeem all men, and therefore, those who share in his death may share in his life.
What is the Significance of the Spirit? The Spirit Sanctifies and quickens, by virtue of the merits of the blood of Jesus Christ, and gives new life to those who participate in his death. Nevertheless, though Christ himself can sanctify man directly, it is an act properly attributed to the Spirit.
What is the Significance of the Father? It is he who sent his son into the world so that he may offer himself up for us. Thus, we do not attribute to the Spirit the role of the Generation of Christ, or of giving him his divine mission, we attribute this to the Father alone. However, the Father can be properly said to save those who are saved by the blood of Christ, because it is the Father who draws those who are to be saved. "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them."
Now, consider baptism. First of all, what is the significance of Water? It signifies our sharing in Christ's death, and our ressurection to newness of life. The Sacramental act of baptism configures one to the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. The material element of water, apart from the sacrament, itself signifies this cleansing that takes place by virtue of the participation in the death and ressurection of Christ.
Now it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, that those who are configured to Christ's death and ressurection obtain the newness of life and sanctifying grace. We know this, because the Holy Spirit is himself "The sanctifier."
Again, the Blood is a clear reference to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross, which blood is of itself life giving, and is the ransom for the world's sin.
Now, here is the point:
By analogy, we can see that the Blood is like the Father: The Sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit is only active in one who participates in the blood. The Spirit proceeds from the Blood. Likewise, the Waters of Baptism, which receive their significance from their participation in and indication of the cleansing power of Christ's death and ressurection, are like the Son, in asmuch as Baptism is Matter united to divine activity, grace.
However, I put this to you: Can the BLOOD be had, not APART from the water, but through a participation in the same thing the water signifies? YES. Martyrdom for the name of Christ is the decision to be united in the death of Christ by suffering for his sake, and he can truly hope for a glorious ressurection who sheds his blood for Christ. Thus, he is said to be baptized in his own blood. Nevertheless, this is not a SACRAMENTAL reception of divine grace, yet it is the most perfect expression of what the sacrament itself SIGNIFIES: Death with Christ. "He who loses his life for my sake shall find it."
Again, I ask you: Can the Spirit be had apart from baptism? Yes, for we read that Cornelius was FILLED with the Holy Spirit before he was even baptized, and that the Spirit descended and filled others as well. Now, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Holy Spirit to be given APART from the remission of sins, for he is, as we said, by definition, the sanctifier. Therefore, those who are baptized in the Spirit are those who receive the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit, before baptism. The reason this is effective, is that CHRIST UNITED HIS BLOOD TO CHARITY, SINCE IT WAS SHED FOR CHARITY. Therefore,he who burns with Charity, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, PARTICIPATES, BY CHARITY, in the blood of Christ, which is to say, he ALSO participates in his death and ressurection, albeit in a non-sacramental way.
Nevertheless, Charity entails not ONLY a profound love of God and Neighbor, but a TRUE love. He who truly LOVES God wills to keep the commandments, not the least of which is "Be baptized." Therefore, those who truly desire God acknowledge the gravity of Our Lord's words: "Unless a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." A person full of true Charity, acknowledges his obligation to receive baptism and desires to do so and makes every effort to receive the saving waters of baptism.
Finally, we must understand that when theologians say that the water of baptism can be supplied, they do not thereby mean we are saved apart from what those waters signify: For we have seen that it is absolutely necessary to participate in Christ's death, in order to share in his ressurection, and he commanded this be done through baptism. But we also see that, in circuмstances where water cannot be had, nevertheless, the SIGNIFICATION of the waters of baptism is never wanting: And through that participation in the REALITY of the death of our redeemer, we can hope to be saved. Once again, where the ONE baptism is, there are the Water, blood and Spirit. However, where the spirit is, there is the Blood, and the signification of the waters of baptism. Where the Blood is, there is the Spirit, and again, the signification of the waters of baptism.
Thanks, I am trying to systematize my thoughts.
Are there any errors here BOD believers?
-
You were a Feeneyite a week ago? Hard to believe, that is about as stirring an essay about this matter as I have ever read. It rung true for me, not that I'm an expert.
-
I fell in with MHFM and Augustinian and got dazzled. I read a bunch of arguments without understanding and took an unbalanced patristic approach that was borderlining on Orthodox theological techniques.
Thanks Raoul.
-
What is the formula to baptize in Latin? There was a homeless mother in the street with a baby and I asked her if her child was baptized and she said no. Then I asked if I could baptize it (Zoe) and she said yes. I know carry a bottle of holy water with me should the opportunity rise again.
You can only do that were the infant in proximate danger of death. It is very seriously forbidden to do that otherwise.
A Priest told me it is okay if you have the parents permission. But I realize you could be right. I'll have to look into this. If anyone can provide any information please let me know.
-
What is the formula to baptize in Latin? There was a homeless mother in the street with a baby and I asked her if her child was baptized and she said no. Then I asked if I could baptize it (Zoe) and she said yes. I know carry a bottle of holy water with me should the opportunity rise again.
You CANNOT use holy water for baptism! If you do, it is INVALID!
-
Why is that PFT? Is it not True and Natural Water?
-
In addition, I wish to present a more substantial treatment of the Trinitarian Unity of Baptism:
Let's start with the Apostle John, in 1John 5:6-8
[6] This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. [7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
Pope St. Leo testifies that this verse refers to the Sanctifying Power of the Spirit, the Redemptive Blood of the redeemer, and the Waters of Baptism.
It is easy to see then, that these three are truly one, and their unity is a unity comparable to the unity of the Trinity, the scripture testifying.
But in what are they three?
Let us consider: What is the signification of the humanity of Christ? Why was he incarnate? To be a truly perfect man, so that he could die and truly atone, and that this atonement may be of eternal value, by virtue of it being an act of God. The blood he shed on the Cross has the grace to redeem all men, and therefore, those who share in his death may share in his life.
What is the Significance of the Spirit? The Spirit Sanctifies and quickens, by virtue of the merits of the blood of Jesus Christ, and gives new life to those who participate in his death. Nevertheless, though Christ himself can sanctify man directly, it is an act properly attributed to the Spirit.
What is the Significance of the Father? It is he who sent his son into the world so that he may offer himself up for us. Thus, we do not attribute to the Spirit the role of the Generation of Christ, or of giving him his divine mission, we attribute this to the Father alone. However, the Father can be properly said to save those who are saved by the blood of Christ, because it is the Father who draws those who are to be saved. "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them."
Now, consider baptism. First of all, what is the significance of Water? It signifies our sharing in Christ's death, and our ressurection to newness of life. The Sacramental act of baptism configures one to the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. The material element of water, apart from the sacrament, itself signifies this cleansing that takes place by virtue of the participation in the death and ressurection of Christ.
Now it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, that those who are configured to Christ's death and ressurection obtain the newness of life and sanctifying grace. We know this, because the Holy Spirit is himself "The sanctifier."
Again, the Blood is a clear reference to the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross, which blood is of itself life giving, and is the ransom for the world's sin.
Now, here is the point:
By analogy, we can see that the Blood is like the Father: The Sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit is only active in one who participates in the blood. The Spirit proceeds from the Blood. Likewise, the Waters of Baptism, which receive their significance from their participation in and indication of the cleansing power of Christ's death and ressurection, are like the Son, in asmuch as Baptism is Matter united to divine activity, grace.
However, I put this to you: Can the BLOOD be had, not APART from the water, but through a participation in the same thing the water signifies? YES. Martyrdom for the name of Christ is the decision to be united in the death of Christ by suffering for his sake, and he can truly hope for a glorious ressurection who sheds his blood for Christ. Thus, he is said to be baptized in his own blood. Nevertheless, this is not a SACRAMENTAL reception of divine grace, yet it is the most perfect expression of what the sacrament itself SIGNIFIES: Death with Christ. "He who loses his life for my sake shall find it."
Again, I ask you: Can the Spirit be had apart from baptism? Yes, for we read that Cornelius was FILLED with the Holy Spirit before he was even baptized, and that the Spirit descended and filled others as well. Now, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Holy Spirit to be given APART from the remission of sins, for he is, as we said, by definition, the sanctifier. Therefore, those who are baptized in the Spirit are those who receive the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit, before baptism. The reason this is effective, is that CHRIST UNITED HIS BLOOD TO CHARITY, SINCE IT WAS SHED FOR CHARITY. Therefore,he who burns with Charity, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, PARTICIPATES, BY CHARITY, in the blood of Christ, which is to say, he ALSO participates in his death and ressurection, albeit in a non-sacramental way.
Nevertheless, Charity entails not ONLY a profound love of God and Neighbor, but a TRUE love. He who truly LOVES God wills to keep the commandments, not the least of which is "Be baptized." Therefore, those who truly desire God acknowledge the gravity of Our Lord's words: "Unless a man be born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." A person full of true Charity, acknowledges his obligation to receive baptism and desires to do so and makes every effort to receive the saving waters of baptism.
Finally, we must understand that when theologians say that the water of baptism can be supplied, they do not thereby mean we are saved apart from what those waters signify: For we have seen that it is absolutely necessary to participate in Christ's death, in order to share in his ressurection, and he commanded this be done through baptism. But we also see that, in circuмstances where water cannot be had, nevertheless, the SIGNIFICATION of the waters of baptism is never wanting: And through that participation in the REALITY of the death of our redeemer, we can hope to be saved. Once again, where the ONE baptism is, there are the Water, blood and Spirit. However, where the spirit is, there is the Blood, and the signification of the waters of baptism. Where the Blood is, there is the Spirit, and again, the signification of the waters of baptism.
Thanks, I am trying to systematize my thoughts.
Are there any errors here BOD believers?
Gregory I,
I agree with Raoul, that was excellent.
-
What is the formula to baptize in Latin? There was a homeless mother in the street with a baby and I asked her if her child was baptized and she said no. Then I asked if I could baptize it (Zoe) and she said yes. I know carry a bottle of holy water with me should the opportunity rise again.
You CANNOT use holy water for baptism! If you do, it is INVALID!
Do you have any evidence for this statement?